United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3610
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Northern District of Iowa.
Jose Jesus Castillo-Gudino,             *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                              Submitted: November 27, 2007
                                 Filed: November 30, 2007
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Jose Castillo-Gudino (Castillo-Gudino) appeals the 27-month prison sentence
the district court1 imposed following Castillo-Gudino’s guilty plea to a charge of re-
entering the United States after being deported following a felony conviction for
operating a vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
Castillo-Gudino’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing the sentence is greater than necessary,
because (1) the sentence was imposed in addition to the revocation sentence Castillo-

      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.
Gudino received when his supervised release on a prior conviction for illegal re-entry
was revoked; (2) Castillo-Gudino has struggled with alcoholism; and (3) the time
Castillo-Gudino spent in detention with immigration authorities will not be credited
toward his sentence.

       We conclude the sentence, imposed within the uncontested Guidelines range,
is not unreasonable: nothing in the record suggests the court overlooked a significant
factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in weighing the appropriate factors. See Rita v. United States, 

, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for within
Guidelines range sentences); United States v. Haack, 

, 1003-04 (8th Cir.
2005) (stating the factors used to review a sentence for reasonableness); see also
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) & cmt. n.3(C) (in relevant part, addressing sentencing when the
defendant commits the instant offense while on supervised release for another
offense).

      Finally, 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-