United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 15-2267
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                            Aurelio Hernandez-Guinac

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: November 6, 2015
                            Filed: November 12, 2015
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Aurelio Hernandez-Guinac pled guilty to being found after illegal reentry, and
at sentencing, the district court1 granted the government’s motion for an upward

      1
      The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) based on an under-represented criminal history,
noting that the sentence could be viewed alternatively as an upward variance based
on a weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Hernandez appeals, and
his counsel has moved to withdraw, arguing in a brief filed under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), that the 21-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable.

      After careful review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
granting an upward departure, see United States v. Vasquez, 

, 738-39
(8th Cir. 2009) (discussing applicability of upward departures under § 4A1.3(a)), and
the sentence is not substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 

, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review). Further, having
independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988),
we find no nonfrivolous issues.

      The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-