United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 14-2989
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                               Felipe Yanez-Estrada

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: February 6, 2015
                             Filed: February 9, 2015
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Felipe Yanez-Estrada directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district
court.1 In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 

(1967), counsel
argues that Yanez’s sentence was substantively unreasonable.

      1
      The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
       After careful review, this court affirms. See United States v. Feemster, 

, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (this court reviews sentence under deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard). Yanez’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable,
as the district court identified relevant sentencing factors, did not commit a clear error
of judgment in weighing the factors, and sentenced Yanez at the bottom of his
correctly calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 

, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (outlining substantive-reasonableness test); United States v.
Rubashkin, 

, 869 (8th Cir. 2011) (sentences within Guidelines range are
presumed to be substantively reasonable); 

(substantive
review is narrow and deferential to sentencing court).

       An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80
(1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. This court notes that any claim for
a sentence reduction based on Guidelines Amendment 782, see U.S.S.G. Supp. App.
C Amend. 782 (Nov. 1, 2014) (reducing base offense level for 10,000-30,000
kilograms of marijuana to 34), should be raised in a sentence-reduction motion filed
in the district court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting sentence reduction based
on retroactive Guidelines amendment).

      The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s request to withdraw is granted.
                     ______________________________




                                           -2-