Corday Thomas pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court 1 sentenced him to 72 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and 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 erred by not varying downward and by imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In a pro se brief, Thomas argues that counsel was ineffective.

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable: the record reflects that the district court carefully considered the section 3553(a) factors, explained why it chose not to vary downward, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the undisputed Guidelines range. See United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). We decline to review Thomas’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005).

Having reviewed the record under Pen-son v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv- *567 olous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.