Clifford Pilcher directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related offense and the district court 1 sentenced him within *350 his calculated advisory Guidelines range to 80 months in prison. 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), challenging the reasonableness of Pilcher’s sentence. Pilcher, pro se, has filed a document citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), and requesting that his sentence be vacated and his case remanded to the district court so that he can be resen-tenced in accordance with a recently adopted Guidelines amendment which lowers the base offense levels for certain drug-related offenses.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pilcher. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences). We also decline to grant Pilcher’s pro se request. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting motion for modification of prison term based on lowered sentencing range). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.