Christopher Montreal Heffner directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court 1 sentenced him within the calculated Guidelines range. His 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 district court erroneously applied an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude that Heffner’s arguments challenging the section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement are foreclosed by this court’s precedents. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 771 F.3d 449, 452-53 (8th Cir. 2014). We further conclude that Heffner’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).

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.