Phillip Robinson directly appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded 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 the within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively unreasonable. Robinson has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the court abused its discretion by focusing solely on his criminal history in sentencing him.

Upon review of the record before us, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (appellate review of sentencing decision), we conclude that the court carefully considered numerous 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, properly explained its rationale for denying a downward variance, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, 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); cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of downward variance where court considered sentencing factors and properly explained rationale). Further, having independently reviewed the record under 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, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. The judgment is affirmed.