John Davison appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A)(B), (b)(1). 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), suggesting that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court — at the bottom of the properly calculated Guidelines range — is not unreasonable. See United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885, 891 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is cloaked in presumption of reasonableness, but presumption may be rebutted by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; defendant must show that district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but nevertheless committed clear error of judgment).

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