United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 02-2472
                                  ___________

United States of America,            *
                                     *
            Appellee,                *
                                     * Appeal from the United States
      v.                             * District Court for the
                                     * District of Nebraska.
Jose Luis Reyes-Sandoval,            *    [UNPUBLISHED]
also known as Edward Paul Franco,    *
                                     *
            Appellant.               *
                                ___________

                         Submitted: January 7, 2003
                             Filed: January 17, 2003
                                  ___________

Before McMILLIAN, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                          ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Jose Luis Reyes-Sandoval (Reyes) pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). After granting the government’s
downward-departure motion made under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, p.s., the district court1
sentenced Reyes to the statutory minimum of 120 months imprisonment, to be
followed by 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Reyes’s newly appointed counsel

      1
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that Reyes’s original attorney suggested he would receive only
a 5-year sentence.

       Construing counsel’s argument as a challenge to the voluntariness of Reyes’s
guilty plea, we note that the district court warned Reyes, at his guilty plea hearing,
that he faced a 120-month mandatory-minimum sentence, and Reyes acknowledged
that the court would decide his sentence, and that he could not withdraw his plea if
he received a higher-than-expected sentence, see United States v. Granados, 

, 345 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); further, the court was not permitted to depart
below the mandatory-minimum sentence absent a government motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e), see United States v. Baker, 

, 441 (8th Cir. 1995).
Finally, any ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us. See United States
v. Cain, 

, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998).

      Having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

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




                                         -2-