Neldwin Adan Santana directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States. Santana’s counsel has moved for leave 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 the sentence is substantively unreasonable, Santana has filed a pro se brief essentially arguing the same.

After thorough review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence, as the court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and sentenced Santana at the bottom of the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2017) (appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines-range sentence); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable).

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 nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.