Patrick Allen directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense. 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 Allen’s below-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.