*1 Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Goff directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he [1] pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and *2 has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Goff has filed a pro se brief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and has also filed a motion for new counsel.
As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed). We conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Goff’s motion, and affirm the judgment.
______________________________
-2-
[1] The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.