United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-3385
                                    ___________

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                  * [UNPUBLISHED]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

                              Submitted: June 26, 2008
                                 Filed: June 27, 2008
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Alvaro L. Velasco appeals the 60-month prison sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute and distributing
50 grams or more of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

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



      1
        The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
       First, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in not applying a
safety-valve exception to Velasco’s mandatory minimum prison sentence, because--
although Velasco admitted the basic facts of his offense at his plea hearing--he stated
that he was not seeking safety-valve relief, did not object to the omission of safety-
valve relief, and declined to participate in a safety-valve interview. See United States
v. Guerra-Cabrera, 

, 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant must do more than
disclose basic facts of crime to merit safety-valve relief); United States v. Pirani, 

, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (discussing plain-error review); see also 18
U.S.C. § 3553(f) (listing requirements for defendant to qualify for safety-valve relief,
including, inter alia, truthfully providing government all information and evidence
defendant has concerning offense); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a) (same).

       Second, we conclude that Velasco’s prison sentence of 5 years, the statutory
minimum, cannot be deemed unreasonable because Velasco did not qualify for safety-
valve relief, and the government did not move for a departure based on substantial
assistance. See United States v. Chacon, 

, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting
that only authority for district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is
found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government moves for
departure based on substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve
relief); see also United States v. Gregg, 

, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that
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-