United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3156
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Northern District of Iowa.
Raul Chavez-Rios,                       *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: September 6, 2007
                                Filed: September 14, 2007
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Raul Chavez-Rios (Chavez-Rios) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and 846 (Count 1); and distributing methamphetamine
within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and
860(a) (Counts 2-4). Chavez-Rios acknowledged before entering his plea that he was
subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on Count 1. The
district court1 sentenced Chavez-Rios to the statutory minimum 120 months’

      1
        The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release with the sentences on the counts to run
concurrently. On appeal, Chavez-Rios’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable under United
States v. Booker, 

(2005). This argument is unavailing. Because
Chavez-Rios did not qualify for a substantial-assistance departure or for safety-valve
relief, the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory
minimum. See United States v. Gregg, 

, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United
States v. Chacon, 

, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003).

       After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave
to withdraw, and we affirm.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-