' Rahman Muhammed directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), generally questioning the district court’s sentencing decision, and seeking permission to withdraw. Muhammed has filed a supplemental brief raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court’s sentencing decision was proper. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 460-61, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions). Additionally, we decline to consider Muhammed’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005) (appellate court generally will not consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal).

Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Muhammed about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.