
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gladis MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-1659.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 28, 2014.
    Filed: Feb. 7, 2014.
    Marsha Wardlaw Clevenger, Anne E. Gardner, Cameron Charles McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Chris Givens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gladis Maldonado, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Lott Rolfe, IV, Rolfe Law Firm, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

After Gladis Maldonado pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense, the district court 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. 
      
      . The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
     