
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Angel ESPINOSA-LOZANO, also known as Angel Espinosa, also known as Angel Lozano, also known as Manuel Corrales-Estrada, Appellant.
    No. 09-2505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2010.
    Filed: April 8, 2010.
    Richard Newberry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
    Angel Espinosa-Lozano, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant, Lyo-nel Norris, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    
      Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Angel Espinosa-Lozano (Espinosa) pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3)-(4), 557. The district court imposed a sentence of 36 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Espinosa’s counsel has moved to withdraw and 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 imposed was greater than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence and no indication the district court, in imposing a below-Guidelines-range sentence, overlooked or misapplied any relevant § 3553(a) factor, or gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor. See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.2009) (holding a sentence was not unreasonable where the record reflected the district court made an individualized assessment based on the facts presented and specifically addressed the defendant’s proffered information in its consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1309, — L.Ed.2d - (2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (listing the factors that constitute an abuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Sicaros-Quintero, 557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir.2009) (according a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range). Finding no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment. 
      
      . The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
     