
    UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio Deshawn THOMAS Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-4524
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 6, 2018
    Filed: February 14, 2018
    
      William Reiser Ripley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Antonio Deshawn Thomas, Pro Se
    Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Antonio Thomas directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. His counsel has moved for leave 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), asserting that an error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(B) occurred during the ehange-of-plea hearing, and that Thomas’s sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that no plain error occurred, see United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (plain-error standard applies where Rule 11 omission was not preserved by timely objection; defendant must show that, but for such omission, he would not have entered plea); and that Thomas’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
     