United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                Nos. 06-3821/3824
                                  ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeals from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Western District of Missouri.
Thomas Joel Maggard,                    *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: October 5, 2007
                                Filed: October 12, 2007
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Thomas Maggard (Maggard) appeals the concurrent sentences the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). Maggard’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), asserting the concurrent 96-month prison sentences
are unreasonable in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the district court abused its
discretion in requiring alcohol abstention and successful participation in approved
counseling as special conditions of supervised release.

      1
        The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
       We conclude Maggard’s prison sentences are not unreasonable: they were
within the undisputed Guidelines range of 77-96 months, and were imposed following
the district court’s proper consideration of relevant section 3553(a) factors. See Rita
v. United States, 

, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of
reasonableness); United States v. Denton, 

, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006)
(holding a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable); United States v.
Haack, 

, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing appropriate consideration of
§ 3553(a) factors). After reviewing the unobjected-to special conditions of supervised
release for plain error, see United States v. Morey, 

, 143 (8th Cir. 1997)
(per curiam) (standard of review), we further conclude the conditions are supported
by the record and reasonably related to the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)
(stating conditions of release must reasonably be related to factors in § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D)), see United States v. Cooper, 

, 586-87
(8th Cir. 1999) (upholding the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol and the
requirement that defendant obtain substance-abuse and mental-health counseling,
where there was some evidence of alcohol and drug abuse and defendant had a history
of mental instability). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v.
Ohio, 

, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

      We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                          -2-