Christopher Robison appeals after he pled guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and the district court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Robison’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 district court erred in denying Robison’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Robison’s motion to dismiss the indictment. See United States v. Lemke, 377 Fed.Appx. 570, 571-72 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam) (district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment based on argument that § 2251(a) regulates sexual activity, not economic activity); see also United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2008) (more than one panel of this court has already rejected constitutional attack that argues mere transportation across state or international lines of cameras used in manufacture of child pornography does not constitute impact upon interstate commerce sufficient to form jurisdictional basis upon which Congress could validly prohibit charged conduct under Commerce Clause). Furthermore, 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.