Robert Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. On appeal, Johnson’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 sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Johnson’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (noting that if a sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, an appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness to the sentence). Further, 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 nonfrivo-lous issues. Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.