*1 Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Jeremiah Watson challenges the 120-month sentence the district court imposed upon re-sentencing, following its grant of relief ^[1]

*2 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). His counsel has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Watson has filed a pro se brief raising the same argument as counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Watson within the Guidelines range; in particular, the court did not commit an error of judgment in weighing the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

-2-

[1] The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.