After the district court 1 denied his motion to suppress evidence, James Allen Crippen pleaded guilty to child-pornography offenses and was sentenced below the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, Crippen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, *304 and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the denial of the suppression motion. Crippen’s unconditional guilty plea, however, forecloses our review of the suppression ruling. See United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 2011). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfriv-olous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of ⅛6 district court, and we grant counsel’s moti0n to withdraw,