United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-1619
                                    ___________

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Chad Salcedo,                            * [UNPUBLISHED]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

                              Submitted: May 21, 2008
                                 Filed: May 27, 2008
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Chad Salcedo appeals the prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5 grams
or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii),
and 846; and using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a
drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The court sentenced
Salcedo to consecutive prison terms of 87 months on the drug offense and 60 months
on the firearm offense, for a total of 147 months. His counsel has moved to withdraw

      1
      The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of
Nebraska.
and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that
Salcedo’s sentence is unreasonable.

       We conclude that Salcedo’s sentence is not unreasonable. Nothing in the record
indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an
improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors
when it imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence for Salcedo’s drug offense. See
Rita v. United States, 

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

, 1003-04 (8th
Cir. 2005) (reasonableness factors). Further, the consecutive 60-month sentence was
the statutory minimum for Salcedo’s firearm offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A),
(D); United States v. Gregg, 

, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting argument
that district court has discretion to determine whether ultimate sentence is reasonable
and to impose non-Guidelines sentence even when portion of sentence is result of
mandatory minimum sentence; United States v. Booker, 

(2005), “does
not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences”).

      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-