Donald Sheldon directly appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to a drug offense. His 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), he argues that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court carefully considered relevant sentencing factors and did not commit a clear error in judgment in weighing the factors, and sentenced Sheldon at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range, 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. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentencing court has wide latitude to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and assign some factors greater *320 weight than others). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.