Francisco Pec-Son appeals following imposition of sentence upon his guilty plea to unlawful use of identification documents and misuse of a social security number. Counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the district court1 committed plain procedural error by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence that the court imposed on Pec-Son. After careful review, we conclude that no plain procedural error occurred. See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2016) (if defendant fails to object to adequacy of district court's explanation for sentence, this court reviews for plain error); United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (explanation is sufficient if record as a whole demonstrates that court considered relevant factors). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.
The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.