United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 03-3949
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
                   Appellee,            * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the District
      v.                                * of Nebraska.
                                        *
Ricardo Valdovinos,                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
                   Appellant.           *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: July 27, 2004
                                Filed: July 30, 2004
                                 ___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Ricardo Valdovinos challenges the sentence the district court* imposed after
Valdovinos pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute approximately 500
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Valdovinos’s counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 

(1967), contending the court should have granted
Valdovinos safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.


      *
       The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
       Contrary to counsel's view, the district court could not have granted safety-
valve relief in this case because Valdovinos did not submit to an interview with the
government. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 

, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). In a pro se submission filed after the notice
of appeal in this matter that we construe as a supplemental brief, Valdovinos appears
to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim, however, is not
properly before the court. See United States v. Hughes, 

, 1069 (8th Cir.
2003).

       We find no nonfrivolous issues after having performed our independent review
under Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988). We thus affirm the judgment of the
district court, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Valdovinos’s
motion for new counsel.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-