A jury found Victor Jiminez-Villanueva guilty of conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court 1 sentenced him within the advisory Guidelines range to 360 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Counsel first argues that, in classifying Jiminez-Villanueva as a career offender, the district court erred in determining that he was the person who had committed two prior felony drug offenses in California. We find no clear error. See United States v. Sanchez-Garcia, 461 F.3d 939, 947 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The probation officer who prepared the presentence report supplied the court with photographs of the individual who was convicted of the prior felonies, which she obtained from the relevant court staff and sheriffs department personnel in California. The court then compared Jiminezr-Villanueva’s appearance in person to the photographs and found that they matched. We have previously held that this is a “sufficiently reliable method for resolving the factual dispute.” See id. at 948.

In light of this conclusion, we need not reach counsel’s second argument regarding the district court’s drug-quantity finding because, as a career offender, Jiminez-Villanueva’s offense level would be the same regardless of drug quantity.

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing the record independently un *916 der Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.