Jacob Montgomery directly appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to an escape charge. 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 court abused its discretion at sentencing in denying Montgomery a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and imposing an unreasonable sentence.

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 court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Montgomery. Specifically, we find that the court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based on the sentencing testimony presented regarding Montgomery’s post-plea conduct, see United States v. William, 681 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2002) (defendant’s post-plea behavior is relevant consideration for determining acceptance of responsibility), and the sentence is not unreasonable, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Further, upon independently reviewing the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.