United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 05-1246
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Hector Curiel-Galindo,                  *
                                        *    [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: September 21, 2005
                                 Filed: September 27, 2005
                                 ___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Hector Curiel-Galindo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). In a written plea agreement under Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (authorizing parties to stipulate to specific
sentence; stipulation binds court once it accepts plea agreement), the parties agreed
Curiel-Galindo should be sentenced to 6 months in prison for the violation. After
accepting Curiel-Galindo’s guilty plea and plea agreement, the district court1
sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal,

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

(1967), arguing that Curiel-Galindo’s 6-month sentence is unreasonable.

       We find that Curiel-Galindo cannot properly challenge his sentence because
he stipulated in his plea agreement to a sentence of 6 months. See United States v.
Nguyen, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily
exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal).

       Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

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




                                         -2-