United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 02-2179
                                    ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
             Appellee,                 *
                                       * Appeal from the United States
       v.                              * District Court for the
                                       * District of Nebraska.
Eric Estrada-Gatica, also known as     *
Danny Sanchez, also known as Beelo *          [UNPUBLISHED]
Soto, also known as Mario Gustamante, *
also known as Johny Sosa, also known *
as Omar Salto, also known as Pedro     *
Catle,                                 *
                                       *
             Appellant.                *
                                  ___________

                          Submitted: February 3, 2003
                              Filed: February 7, 2003
                                   ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       A jury found Eric Estrada-Gatica guilty of illegal reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the district court1 sentenced him to 100 months
imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to

      1
       The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), and
Estrada-Gatica has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Upon careful review of the
record, we reject seriatim the multiple arguments for reversal, and we affirm.

      As to the Anders brief arguments, Estrada-Gatica’s sentence does not violate
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

(2000), see United States v. Kempis-Bonola,

, 701-02 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 

(2002); there is no
indication that a deportation order was entered in this case and thus, we need not
address counsel’s argument about time limits on detention after entry of a deportation
order; an illegal-reentry conviction does not require proof of specific intent,
see United States v. Gonzalez-Chavez, 

, 17-18 (8th Cir. 1997); and the
government offered evidence in support of each of the elements of the offense,
see United States v. Moyer, 

, 1086 (8th Cir. 2002).

       The pro se arguments also fail. The district court did not clearly err in finding
Estrada-Gatica competent to stand trial, see United States v. Hinton, 

,
912 (8th Cir. 2000); he waived his rights under the Speedy Trial Act by failing to file
a motion to dismiss below, see United States v. White Horse, No. 02-1199, 

, at *3 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2003); we see no plain error with regard to Estrada-
Gatica’s constitutional speedy-trial rights, see id.; 

;
he failed to move for departure based on diminished mental capacity and in fact, he
received the sentence he requested, see United States v. Murphy, 

, 780
(8th Cir. 2001); his claim to United States citizenship is contradicted by the jury’s
verdict, and further, Estrada-Gatica himself testified at trial that he was not a United
States citizen; and his ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us in this
direct criminal appeal.

      Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to



                                          -2-
withdraw, we affirm Estrada-Gatica’s conviction and sentence, and we deny his
pending motions.

     A true copy.

           Attest:

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




                                     -3-