United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 04-4039
                                   ___________

United States of America,         *
                                  *
         Appellee,                * Appeal from the United States
                                  * District Court for the
    v.                            * District of Nebraska.
                                  *
Ramon Humberto Gaspar-Hernandez, *        [UNPUBLISHED]
                                  *
         Appellant.               *
                             ___________

                             Submitted: September 28, 2005
                                Filed: September 30, 2005
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Gaspar-Hernandez (Hernandez) appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pled guilty to a drug charge. Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the court sentenced Hernandez to 121 months’
imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. Hernandez’s counsel moved to
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing
that the district court erred by not granting safety-valve relief and sentencing


      1
        The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
Hernandez to the low end of the resulting Guidelines range of 108-135 months’
imprisonment.

       Hernandez, however, cannot challenge the sentence to which he stipulated in
his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement because he voluntarily exposed himself to a
specific punishment. See United States v. Nguyen, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1995)
(stating “defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific
sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal”) (citations omitted).

     Further, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

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




                                       -2-