Michael S. Sacca appeals the 63-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to possessing pseudoephed-rine with the intent, and having reasonable cause to believe it would be used, to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). Sacca’s counsel 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 government failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the drug quantity involved in the offense.

The district court did not clearly err in its drug-quantity determination, as it relied on testimony and a government exhibit to find that Sacca purchased 58 grams of pseudoephedrine (contained in over-the-counter medications) for the purpose of methamphetamine manufacturing. See United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081, 1085 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; sentencing court may find facts by a preponderance of the evidence). Further, the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, and according presumption of reasonableness to sentence within advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing procedural error). Independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issue.

This court affirms the judgment of the district court, and grants counsel’s motion to withdraw.