
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gregory WILLIS, Appellant.
    No. 05-1498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 5, 2006.
    Filed May 11, 2006.
    Raymond Martin Meyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
    Brian S. Witherspoon, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Gregory Willis, Greenville, IL, pro se.
    Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Willis appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court imposed after Willis pleaded guilty to bank robbery. On appeal, 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).

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, Willis’s argument fails. See United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir.2005) (reasonableness standard of review under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is equivalent to abuse-of-discretion standard of review). The sentence was within the properly calculated Guidelines range, and there is nothing in the record to suggest Willis could meet his burden to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
      
       The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     