Carl Reeder directly appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, and the district court 1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court concludes that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court specifically referenced several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 683 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[Wjhere a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.”). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.