Mark Howard Mink directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to coercing and enticing a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Mink has filed a pro se supplemental submission, in which he claims counsel was ineffective. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that Mink’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the 120-month sentence imposed was the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (whoever commits offense shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life); United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (rejecting argument that sentence was substantively unreasonable, as defendant received statutory minimum sentence); United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (district court lacks authority to reduce sentence below statutory minimum). This court declines to consider Mink’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct criminal appeal. See Woods, 717 F.3d at 657.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.