Jose Vega Medina directly appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to an immigration offense. Counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, this court concludes that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision). Pursuant to an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues. The judgment is affirmed.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.