After Gladis Maldonado pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense, the district court1 varied downward from the advisory Guidelines range and sentenced her to serve 144 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Maldonado’s 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 greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing.
Applying a presumption of reasonableness to the sentence, which fell well below the uncontested Guidelines range, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (standard of review). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.