
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Corey M. McKINNEY, also known as Corey M. McKinley, also known as Monroe, also known as Chef FireFlame Corey, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-3121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 1, 2014.
    Filed: Oct. 3, 2014.
    Christine M. Blegen, Blegen Law Firm, LLC, Lee’s Summit, MO, for appellant.
    Corey M. McKinney, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Brian P. Casey, Patrick D. Daly, Asst. U.S. Attys., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
    Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After Corey McKinney pleaded guilty to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and sex trafficking of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2), the district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years and life in prison, respectively. In this direct appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and McKinney has filed multiple pro se supplemental briefs.

Addressing the arguments raised, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was based on unsupported assertions that his plea was entered in ignorance and without full discovery. See United States v. Alvarado, 615 F.3d 916, 920 (8th Cir.2010) (trial court can deny motion to withdraw guilty plea if allegations in motion are inherently unreliable, are not supported by specific facts, or are not grounds for withdrawal even if true). In addition, the plea stipulations establish a factual basis for the convictions, and the plea transcript shows that McKinney, who was found competent to proceed, entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, aware of the possible sentence he faced. McKinney’s ineffective-assistance claims are more appropriately raised in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868,

872-73 (8th Cir.2007), and his remaining arguments are foreclosed by his valid guilty plea, see United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir.2005), including his arguments about witness testimony, the validity of searches and admissibility of evidence, and the government’s burden of proof.

After reviewing the record independently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny McKinney’s motion to enlarge the record. 
      
      . The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
     