United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 05-1562
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
              Appellee,                  *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
         v.                              * District Court for the
                                         * Southern District of Iowa.
Jorge Magana-Suarez,                     *
                                         *    [UNPUBLISHED]
              Appellant.                 *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: March 20, 2006
                                 Filed: March 20, 2006
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Jorge Magana-Suarez (Magana) appeals the 30-month sentence the district
     1
court imposed upon his guilty plea to illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Magana’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 

(1967), questioning the reasonableness of the
sentence (which was at the top of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range) in light
of Magana’s cultural assimilation.



         1
        The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.
       We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Haack, 

, 1004 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 

(2005).
The district court calculated the Guidelines imprisonment range and took that range
into account, along with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Magana’s cultural-
assimilation argument, in determining the sentence. See United States v. Booker, 

, 260-62 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review).

       Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

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




                                        -2-