United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 10-2208
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Southern District of Iowa.
Sven Ehand, also known as               *
Mika Jakonen,                           * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: December 28, 2010
                                Filed: February 11, 2011
                                 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Sven Ehand pled guilty to possessing fifteen or more counterfeit access devices,
a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3), 2. The district court1 imposed a prison
sentence of 12 months and 1 day, the lower end of the advisory guidelines range. On




      1
        The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
appeal, Ehand’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), raising an ineffective-assistance claim.2

       We decline to consider the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.
See United States v. Cain, 

, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998) (an ineffective-
assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition). Furthermore, we
conclude that the district court committed no procedural error and imposed a
substantively reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 

, 51 (2007)
(in reviewing a sentence, an appellate court first ensures that the district court
committed no significant procedural error and then considers the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard); United States
v. Haack, 

, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion).

      Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), we find
no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
                       ______________________________




      2
        After the Anders brief was filed, Ehand retained new counsel, who filed an
appearance on his behalf on January 3, 2011. Ehand’s original appellate counsel filed
a motion to withdraw, which was granted on January 4, 2011. Ehand’s newly
retained counsel has not requested leave to file a supplemental brief.
                                         -2-