United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                 No. 03-1066
                                 ___________

United States of America,            *
                                     *
            Appellee,                *
                                     * Appeal from the United States
      v.                             * District Court for the
                                     * District of Minnesota.
Marcos Alejandro Martinez-Rodriguez, *
also known as Alejandro Rodriguez,   *      [UNPUBLISHED]
also known as Jose Ortego,           *
                                     *
            Appellant.               *
                                ___________

                        Submitted: July 16, 2003
                            Filed: July 21, 2003
                                 ___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
                             ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Marcos Martinez-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following
deportation after conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2). At sentencing, the district court1 denied Martinez-Rodriguez’s
motion for downward departure and sentenced him to 71 months imprisonment and
3 years supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a


      1
       The HONORABLE JAMES M. ROSENBAUM, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the district court
erroneously sentenced Martinez-Rodriguez at the top of the Guidelines range, and
that the court should have granted a downward departure. We reject these arguments.

       We do not review a sentence that has been imposed at the top of a properly
determined Guidelines range. See United States v. Woodrum, 

, 101 (8th
Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Nor do we review a sentencing court’s denial of a downward
departure, where, as here, there is no indication the court believed it lacked the
authority to depart. See United States v. Lopez-Arce, 

, 783-84 (8th Cir.
2001).

      We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

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

      A true copy.

             Attest:

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




                                         -2-