Jervonz Williams appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and the court determined that he qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). *591 On appeal, Williams’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), suggesting that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Williams’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as nothing in the record indicates that the court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); see also United States v. Gant, 721 F.3d 505, 511 (8th Cir. 2013) (on substantive review, district court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits clear error of judgment). '

Having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Williams about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.