United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 07-3326
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
              Appellee,                 *
                                        *
         v.                             * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the
Jose Tomas Cuautle-Robles,              * Western District of Missouri.
                                        *
              Appellant.                * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: February 21, 2008
                                 Filed: February 25, 2008
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Jose Tomas Cuautle-Robles appeals the 15-month prison sentence the district
     1
court imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the transportation of
illegal aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii),
(A)(v)(II), and (B)(ii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 

 (1967). For the following reasons, we affirm.




         1
        The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
       First, the district court did not clearly err in denying Cuautle-Robles’s request
for a mitigating-role reduction because he failed to prove he played a minimal or
minor role in the offense; instead, he admitted to knowingly aiding others in
transporting illegal aliens and keeping track of payments for the trip. See United
States v. Godinez, 

, 1042 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review; defendant
bears burden to prove he played minor role).

       Second, we conclude that Cuautle-Robles’s within-Guidelines-range sentence
is not unreasonable: nothing in the record indicates the district court overlooked a
relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of
judgment in weighing appropriate factors. See Rita v. United States, 

,
2462-68 (2007); United States v. Haack, 

, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005).

      After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to
withdraw, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-