Jose Melchor-Rueda directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the *616 district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to an illegal re-entry offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(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 substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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.