Steven Robinson appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence that the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a federal bank robbery charge. 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), counsel challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 672 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). Further, 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 nonfriv-olous issues.

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.