Mackenzie Servantez directly appeals after he pled guilty to a federal drug charge, and the district court 1 sentenced him at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he challenges the substantive reasonableness of Servan-tez’s sentence. Servantez had filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating counsel’s argument.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vary below the Guidelines range, and that the resulting sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Jordan, 573 F.3d 586, 590 (8th Cir. 2009). 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 nonfrivolous issues.

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