United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-1478
                                    ___________

United States of America,            *
                                     *
            Appellee,                *
                                     *
      v.                             * Appeal from the United States
                                     * District Court for the
Jorge Salazar-Gomez, also known as   * District of Nebraska.
Manuel Salazar-Gomez,                *
                                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.               *
                                ___________

                              Submitted: January 29, 2008
                                 Filed: January 31, 2008
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Jorge Salazar-Gomez (Salazar-Gomez) appeals the 120-month prison sentence
the district court1 imposed after Salazar-Gomez pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distributing and possessing with intent to distribute
50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1).
Salazar-Gomez’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.


      1
        The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
California, 

(1967), arguing (1) the district court erred in sentencing
Salazar-Gomez to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence because a co-defendant
received a less severe sentence; (2) the requirement of a government motion for
substantial assistance to depart below the mandatory minimum violates the separation
of powers by giving too much power to the prosecution; and (3) the government’s
delay in indicting Salazar-Gomez prejudiced his ability to provide substantial
assistance.

       These arguments are without merit. First, the district court had no discretion,
without a government departure motion or Salazar-Gomez’s qualification for safety-
valve relief, to sentence him below the mandatory minimum sentence. See United
States v. Gregg, 

, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting an argument that the
district court had discretion to determine whether the ultimate sentence is reasonable
and to impose a non-Guidelines sentence when a portion of the sentence is the result
of a mandatory minimum sentence; “Booker2 does not relate to statutorily-imposed
sentences”); United States v. Chacon, 

, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating
“the only authority for the district court to depart below the statutorily mandated
minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when
the government makes a motion for substantial assistance or when the defendant
qualifies under the safety valve relief”) (citing United States v. Auginash, 

, 785 (8th Cir. 2001).

      Second, requiring a government motion to depart below the mandatory
minimum does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See United States v.
Holbdy, 

, 914 (8th Cir. 2007) (requiring a government motion before the
court can deviate from a statutory mandatory minimum sentence for defendant’s
substantial assistance does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and Booker
does not provide an avenue to reconsider such holding).


      2
       United States v. Booker, 

(2005).

                                         -2-
       Third, Salazar-Gomez’s guilty plea forecloses his challenge to the alleged pre-
indictment delay, see United States v. Staples, 

, 864 (8th Cir.) (holding
a valid guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects or errors), cert. denied, 

(2006), and in any event, there has been no showing the delay caused Salazar-
Gomez to lose access to any specific testimony or documents that would have aided
his defense, see United States v. Hance, 

, 905-06 (8th Cir. 2007)
(discussing pre-indictment delay).

      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.
                       ______________________________




                                          -3-