James Glass appeals the 130-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she moves to withdraw and suggests that the district court erred in ordering Glass’s federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence he was serving on an unrelated offense.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court’s decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence reviewed for reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review is whether district court abused discretion by imposing unreasonable sentence). The court noted its obligation to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, recited the factors, and explained its decision to run the federal sentence consecutively to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (directing district court to consider § 3553(a) factors in determining whether sentence should run consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence); Winston, 456 F.3d at 868 (sentence affirmed where district court explained its decision to run sentence consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s request to withdraw subject to counsel informing Glass of the procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for writ of certiorari, and we affirm the judgment.