United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 02-1686
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the
      v.                                * Southern District of Iowa.
                                        *
German Martinez-Guido,                  *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                          Submitted: August 21, 2002
                              Filed: August 23, 2002
                                   ___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       After a jury trial, German Martinez-Guido was convicted of conspiring to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and possessing with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court1 sentenced
Martinez-Guido to 188 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release on each
count, to be served concurrently. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and

      1
      The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the district
court erred in applying a 2-level role-in-the-offense enhancement. In his pro se
supplemental brief, Martinez-Guido argues that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel; that the court and defense counsel violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c); that, although Congress made methamphetamine a Schedule III
controlled substance with a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment, the Attorney
General changed it to a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of the
separation of powers; and that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000).

       We reject these arguments seriatim. The district court did not clearly err in
imposing the 2-level role enhancement based on the evidence that Martinez-Guido
directed at least one other person, see United States v. Van Chase, 

, 583-
84 (8th Cir. 1998); the ineffective-assistance claims are not properly before us, see
United States v. Martin, 

, 771 (8th Cir. 1995); Rule 11 is not applicable
because Martinez-Guido pleaded not guilty and went to trial, see Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c); the separation-of-powers argument was not raised below and thus we do not
address it except to say that we find no plain error, see United States v. Kempis-
Bonola, 

, 701 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), petition for cert.
filed, No. 02-5415 (July 15, 2002); and there was no Apprendi violation.

      Following our independent review, see Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988),
we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and we affirm.




                                          -2-
A true copy.

      Attest:

               CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                              -3-