James Trice directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge and the district court1 varied downward to impose a sentence below the calculated Guidelines range. 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 the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Trice. See United States v. Franik, 687 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir.2012) (where defendant does not raise procedural error, court bypasses review and only reviews substantive reasonableness of sentence for abuse of discretion); see also United States v. Lazarski 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009) (where district court varied downward from Guidelines range, it was “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward 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 nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Trice about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.