Sira Noithip appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court 1 after he pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court’s sentence is unreasonable.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The court did not commit any procedural error, see United States v. Toothman, 543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error), and its carefully explained sentence at the bottom of the applicable range was not unreasonable, see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir. 2009) (according presumption of reasonableness to sentence at bottom of Guidelines range); United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.) (listing circumstances where sentencing court abuses its discretion resulting in unreasonable sentence), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 927, 128 S.Ct. 305, 169 L.Ed.2d 219 (2007).

Further, having reviewed the record independently under Pens on v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.