
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mark MINK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-3279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 6, 2014.
    Filed: June 6, 2014.
    Allison Waldrip Bragg, Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Mark Mink, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mark Howard Mink directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to coercing and enticing a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Mink has filed a pro se supplemental submission, in which he claims counsel was ineffective. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

After careful review, this court concludes that Mink’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the 120-month sentence imposed was the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (whoever commits offense shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life); United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir.2013) (rejecting argument that sentence was substantively unreasonable, as defendant received statutory minimum sentence); United States v. Watts, 553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (district court lacks authority to reduce sentence below statutory minimum). This court declines to consider Mink’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct criminal appeal. See Woods, 717 F.3d at 657.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 
      
      . The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
     