In this direct criminal appeal, Cody Malone challenges the thirty-year prison sentence that the District Court 1 imposed after Malone pleaded guilty to inducing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. Malone’s 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 thirty-year sentence is unreasonable. Malone has filed a supplemental pro se brief asserting essentially the same argument.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentences under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and noting that if a sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143, 1145-47 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming the imposition of a thirty-year sentence when the defendant pleaded guilty to producing child pornography and admitted “that he had used online profiles to befriend ... adolescent girls, had engaged in sexual conduct with them, and had downloaded onto his computer sexually explicit pictures of them”).

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm Malone’s sentence, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.