Joshua Boyles appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, and the district court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. 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 district court erred in denying Boyles’s motion to suppress. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Boyles’s motion. See United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court’s determination that probable cause existed is reviewed de novo, and factual findings are reviewed for clear error; this court will affirm denial of suppression motion unless it finds that decision is unsupported by evidence, based on erroneous view of law, or court is left with firm conviction that mistake has been made).

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.