Shawn Lee directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) and (d)(1)(B). 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 Lee’s sentence is unreasonable.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unrea *446 sonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentences; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply, but is not required to apply, presumption of reasonableness). 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 have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.