United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3861
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
              Appellee,                 *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
         v.                             * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Shonna Lynn Jordan,                     *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
              Appellant.                *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: December 28, 2007
                                 Filed: January 7, 2008
                                 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                        ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Shonna Lynn Jordan challenges the 235-month prison sentence the district
     1
court imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute at least 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846. Jordan’s counsel has moved to
withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967),
arguing that the district court erred in handling Jordan’s case. In a pro se
supplemental brief, Jordan indicates that her counsel was ineffective and challenges

         1
      The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
the drug quantity attributed to her. She has also moved for appointment of new
counsel.

      Ineffective-assistance claims are more properly brought in a proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 2255, see United States v. Cook, 

, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004),
and Jordan cannot now contest drug quantity because she stipulated to it in her plea
agreement, see United States v. Nguyen, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). We also
conclude that Jordan’s sentence, which was at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines
range, is not unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 

, 2462 (2007);
United States v. Harris, 

, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). The district court
expressly considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and nothing in the
record suggests that the court misapplied those factors, see 

.
We also find no basis to conclude that the district court mishandled Jordan’s case.

      After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we decline to appoint new counsel.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-