Joel Ochoa-Gonzales directly appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug charge. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion because the sentence was greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The record reflects no procedural error, and the sentence — which was below the advisory Guidelines range — is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (in reviewing sentences, appellate court first ensures that no significant procedural error occurred, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Elodio-Benitez, 672 F.3d 584, 586 (8th Cir. 2012) (“ ‘where a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further’ ” (quoting United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009))).

*562 After an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.