United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 05-3575
                                   ___________

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                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]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

                             Submitted: July 26, 2006
                                Filed: August 7, 2006
                                 ___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Erasmo Gonzalez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United
States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). At
sentencing the district court1 determined a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57-71
months, declined to depart downward from that range, and imposed a sentence of 57
months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to
withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967),
arguing that the sentence is unreasonable given several bases for departure.

      1
        The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
       First, Gonzalez-Gonzalez may not assign error based on the district court’s
denial of a downward departure, because the ruling was discretionary and not the
result of a mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart. See United States
v. Morell, 

, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005).

        Second, the sentence is not unreasonable merely because of sentencing
differences among judicial districts in illegal-alien cases, or disadvantages Gonzalez-
Gonzalez may suffer in prison as an illegal alien. See United States v. Sebastian, 

, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparity resulting from fact that
“fast-track” programs were available for those convicted of immigration offenses in
certain judicial districts, but not to defendant, did not render his sentence
unreasonable); cf. United States v. Cardosa-Rodriguez, 

, 613-614 (8th
Cir. 2001) (deportable aliens’ ineligibility for Bureau of Prisons benefits does not
provide basis for downward departure in illegal-reentry cases). We conclude nothing
in the record rebuts the presumption that this sentence, within the undisputed advisory
Guidelines range, is reasonable. See United States v. Tobacco, 

, 1151
(8th Cir. 2005).

       Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________




                                          -2-