United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 03-2107
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
            Appellee,                   *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Eduardo Lara-Valadez,                   *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                  *
                                   ___________

                            Submitted: February 5, 2004
                                Filed: March 16, 2004
                                   ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Eduardo Lara-Valadez (Lara-Valadez) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 121 months in prison and 5 years
supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Lara-Valadez argues that the
Sentencing Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses are unconstitutionally severe,
and that the district court should have departed downward based on his age and
background.

      1
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
        We reject both arguments. See United States v. Montanye, 

, 192
(8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (plain-error standard of review for issues not raised below).
First, the constitutional argument is conclusory and unsupported. See United States
v. Frieberger, 

, 920-21 (8th Cir. 1994) (defendant who challenges
constitutionality of methamphetamine Guidelines must demonstrate that Guidelines
were based on forbidden or suspect ground or that they do not survive rational-basis
review), cert. denied, 

(1995). Second, Lara-Valadez did not request
a departure below, and the district court was not required to grant one sua sponte.

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                          -2-