Faustino Toj-Granados appeals after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and the District Court 1 imposed a sentence above the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. His 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 imposed an unreasonable sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Toj-Granados and that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (standard of review); United States v. Woods, 670 F.3d 883, 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining how a district court may abuse its discretion such that it imposes an unreasonable sentence); United States v. Mejia-Perez, 635 F.3d 351, 353 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[I]t was not unreasonable for the sentencing court to demonstrate with an upward departure or variance that contemptuous disregard for our immigration laws can have serious consequences.”).

Having independently reviewed the record 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 affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.