United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 02-1087
                                  ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
            Appellee,                  *
                                       *
      v.                               * Appeal from the United States
                                       * District Court for the
Roberto Arreguin-Rivera,               * District of Nebraska.
                                       *
            Appellant.                 *       [UNPUBLISHED]
                                  ___________

                             Submitted: July 16, 2002
                                 Filed: July 23, 2002
                                 ___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Roberto Arreguin-Rivera (Arreguin-Rivera) was arrested after police found a
large amount of methamphetamine in hidden compartments in a car in which he was
a passenger. He pled guilty to conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute,
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. The district court1
sentenced Arreguin-Rivera to 97 months imprisonment, based on a Guidelines range
of 97-121 months, and 5 years supervised release. Arreguin-Rivera appeals, and we
affirm. After reviewing the record for plain error, we find no plain error.

      1
       The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska.
      In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 

(1967), Arreguin-
Rivera’s counsel concedes Arreguin-Rivera’s sentence is not subject to review, if
within a properly calculated Guidelines range and not otherwise in violation of law.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Woodrum, 

, 101 (8th Cir.
1992) (per curiam). We agree. Arreguin-Rivera's sentence is within a properly
calculated range and no violations of law exist.

       Having independently reviewed the entire record in accordance with Penson
v. Ohio, 

(1988), we find no plain error affecting Arreguin-Rivera’s
substantial rights. See United States v. Vonn, 

, 1046 (2002) (standard
of review). We do note two issues which warrant comment.

       First, Arreguin-Rivera received a role in the offense sentencing adjustment
based on the plea agreement, which stipulated he was a "minor participant." See
United States v. Nguyen, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) ("A defendant who
explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge
that punishment on appeal."). Although Arreguin-Rivera argued at the plea hearing
and on appeal that his involvement was virtually non-existent, the district court did
not err in relying on the plea agreement stipulation.

       Second, the plea agreement and the statements made at the plea hearing were
sufficient to form a factual basis for the conspiracy plea. In the plea agreement,
Arreguin-Rivera agreed that he "conspired to deliver methamphetamine to Nebraska."
At the plea hearing, Arreguin-Rivera's statements, together with his lawyer's
statements, show that he was pleading guilty to a conspiracy because the car driver
was prepared to testify and implicate Arreguin-Rivera in the conspiracy.

       The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted.



                                         -2-
A true copy.

      Attest:

               CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                              -3-