In this direct criminal appeal, Jorge Gonzalez challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed following his guilty *587 plea to a drug charge. Gonzalez’s counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he raises the issue that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines range after discussing both mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances, and after considering sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (explaining, where district court sentenced defendant below the Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward 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 for appeal.

We affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.