United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-2638
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         *
      v.                                 * Appeal from the United States
                                         * District Court for the
J. Jesus Tello-Martinez                  * Western District of Missouri.
                                         *
             Appellant.                  * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: June 3, 2008
                                 Filed: June 6, 2008
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       J. Jesus Tello-Martinez appeals the 77-month prison sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an alien found unlawfully present in the
United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.




      1
       The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
      We conclude that the within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable,
because 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) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack,

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

      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-