Michael Holiway appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). His 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 greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing.

Upon careful review, we find no basis for concluding that the district court im *663 posed a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing or otherwise abused its discretion in sentencing Holiway. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (discussing appellate court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion standard; noting that appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing ways in which district court might be found to have committed abuse of discretion).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.