Joshua Woolridge appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and the District Court 1 sentenced him to thirty months in prison, a term within the calculated Guidelines range. 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, in essence, that Woolridge’s prison term is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental brief, Woolridge claims that he has received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Woolridge’s prison term is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions and noting that if a sentence is within the Guidelines range, a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness). Further, we decline to consider Woolridge’s ineffective-assistance claims and related asser *464 tions on direct appeal. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 991-92 (8th Cir. 2011) (deferring possible ineffective-assistance claims to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding). Finally, having 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw subject to counsel informing Woolridge about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.