United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 05-1032
                                     ___________

United States of America,             *
                                      *
            Appellee,                 *
                                      * Appeal from the United States
      v.                              * District Court for the
                                      * District of Nebraska.
Victor M. Alvaro-Reyes, also known    *
as Cruz De Luna,                      * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                      *
            Appellant.                *
                                 ___________

                              Submitted: January 20, 2006
                                 Filed: February 2, 2006
                                  ___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Victor Alvaro-Reyes appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In a brief
filed under Anders v. California, 

(1967), counsel argues that Alvaro-
Reyes’s sentence is excessive and unreasonable.




      1
      The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
       To the extent counsel is raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to Alvaro-
Reyes’s sentence, we conclude that the argument fails. See United States v. Collins,

, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences
that are grossly disproportionate to crime); cf. 

679-80 (imposition of
mandatory life sentence for conspiring to distribute more than 500 grams of
methamphetamine was not cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment);
United States v. Jones, 

, 828-29 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding 151-month
sentence for conspiring to distribute phencyclidine not “excessive”).

       We further find that Alvaro-Reyes’s sentence--which was imposed at the
bottom of the Guidelines range, and well below the mandatory statutory minimum--is
not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 

, 765-67 (2005)
(appellate courts should review post-Booker sentences for unreasonableness); United
States v. Lincoln, 

, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range
is presumptively reasonable, and defendant must rebut presumption of
reasonableness), cert. denied, 

(2005).

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
                      ______________________________




                                        -2-