Delmonte Wilson directly appeals after he pled guilty to a felon-in-possession offense and the district court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. 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 Wilson received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, that the court erred in its Guidelines calculations, and that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to offer a favorable plea deal.

To begin, we decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). We further conclude that counsel presents no meritorious basis for reversing Wilson’s sentence, see United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions), or for finding prosecutorial misconduct, see Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1387, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) (defendants have no right to be offered plea deal).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.