Kareem Ramos directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

To the extent the Anders brief may be read as challenging the reasonableness of Ramos’s sentence, we conclude the argument fails. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing method for undertaking appellate review of sentences); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (where district court has sentenced defendant below advisory Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). 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 issue.

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Ramos about the procedures for seeking rehearing and petitioning for a writ of certiorari.