Deshawn Mapp appeals the 105-month prison sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon remand for resentencing in light of Dorsey v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012). 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 Mapp was not properly classified as a career offender. We do not consider the issue, however, because Mapp did not challenge his career-offender status at his first sentencing hearing or in his first direct appeal. Further, he agreed at the resentenc-ing hearing with the calculation of his sentencing range under the career offender Guideline. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (waiver is intentional relinquishment or abandonment of known right and is not reviewable on appeal); United States v. Walterman, 408 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant cannot raise in second appeal challenge to sentencing enhancements that he failed to raise in first appeal, simply because he is resentenced); United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805, 806 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding waiver of objections when counsel confirmed at sentencing that there were no objections).

Having independently 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 for appeal. The judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw.