[UNPUBLISHED]

Sven Ehand pled guilty to possessing fifteen or more counterfeit access devices, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3), 2. The district court 1 imposed a prison sentence of 12 months and 1 day, the lower end of the advisory guidelines range. On appeal, Ehand’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising an ineffective-assistance claim. 2

We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (an ineffective-assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition). Furthermore, we conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (in reviewing a sentence, an appellate court first ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.