Scott Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. On appeal, Johnson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Johnson’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision); United States v. Zauner, 688 F.3d 426, 429-30 (8th Cir. 2012) (when district court varies downward from presumptively reasonable Guidelines sentence, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward even further). Further, having independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The judgment is affirmed.