United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 02-1263
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Jose Luis Ramos-Corona,                 *    [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                          Submitted: June 5, 2002
                              Filed: June 10, 2002
                                   ___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Jose Luis Ramos-Corona pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After the district court1 sustained
Ramos-Corona’s objections to the presentence report’s drug-quantity determination
and 2-level firearm enhancement, he was subject to a Guidelines imprisonment range
of 97-121 months and a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. The
court then sentenced him to 121 months in prison and 5 years supervised release.

      1
       The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska.
       On appeal Ramos-Corona’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing the district court should
have sentenced Ramos-Corona to 120 rather than 121 months imprisonment. We may
not review a sentence, however, simply because it is at the top of a properly
calculated Guidelines range. See United States v. Woodrum, 

, 101 (8th
Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

      Having found no nonfrivolous issues in our independent review of the record,
see Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and we affirm.

      A true copy.

            Attest:

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




                                       -2-