Thomas Jager directly appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to fraud offenses. His counsel has moved 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 the sentence is unreasonable. In a supplemental brief, Jager also argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and challenges various Guidelines calculations.

We decline to review Jager’s challenges to the Guidelines calculations, because his pre-sentencing stipulation to the Guidelines range, coupled with defense counsel’s statement at sentencing that Jager had no objections to the presentence report’s facts and Guidelines calculations, constituted withdrawal of his previous objections. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (waiver is intentional abandonment of known right and results in issue being unreviewable on appeal). We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence). Finally, upon independently reviewing 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, and we affirm.