Joseph Williams directly appeals the 175-month prison sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon him after he pleaded guilty to possessing oxycodone with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel suggests that the sentence was unreasonable, and that the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by applying a presumption of reasonableness to the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review). We find nothing in the record to suggest that the district court applied a presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). It is within our discretion to apply a presumption of reasonableness to Williams’s sentence because it falls within the undisputed Guidelines range, and we do so here. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461.

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. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.