United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 08-2729
                                  ___________

United States of America,             *
                                      *
             Appellee,                *
                                      * Appeal from the United States
      v.                              * District Court for the
                                      * District of Nebraska.
James L. Glass, also known as         *
Youngster, also known as Bazz,        * [UNPUBLISHED]
also known as Jboy, also known as     *
Bazzy, also known as Bass,            *
also known as JB,                     *
                                      *
             Appellant.               *
                                 ___________

                             Submitted: October 16, 2009
                                Filed: December 11, 2009
                                 ___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                          ___________

PER CURIAM.

      James Glass appeals the 130-month sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), in which she moves to withdraw and suggests that



      1
      The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
the district court erred in ordering Glass’s federal sentence to run consecutively to a
state sentence he was serving on an unrelated offense.

       We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a
consecutive sentence. See United States v. Winston, 

, 867 (8th Cir.
2006) (district court’s decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence reviewed
for reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 

, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005)
(standard of review is whether district court abused discretion by imposing
unreasonable sentence). The court noted its obligation to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, recited the factors, and explained its decision to run the federal
sentence consecutively to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (directing
district court to consider § 3553(a) factors in determining whether sentence should run
consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence); 

(sentence affirmed where district court explained its decision to run sentence
consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors).

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
request to withdraw subject to counsel informing Glass of the procedures for seeking
rehearing or filing a petition for writ of certiorari, and we affirm the judgment.
                        ______________________________




                                         -2-