United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 05-4366
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * Eastern District of Arkansas.
Richard Orville Norris, II,              *
                                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                               Submitted: March 5, 2007
                                  Filed: March 6, 2007
                                   ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Richard Norris, II, pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography. See 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), (b)(1) (imprisonment range of 15-40 years). Because he was
subject to a 15-year statutory minimum, his Guidelines sentence was 180 months. See
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). After considering the advisory Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, the district court1 sentenced Norris to 240 months in prison and 5
years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), and seeks leave to withdraw.

      1
       The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
      In light of the justification the district court offered for Norris’s sentence--
including his relatively young age and repeat-offender status, the likelihood he would
commit another sex crime, the need for deterrence and protection of the public, and
his need for intensive treatment--we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.
See United States v. Booker, 

(2005) (requiring review for
unreasonableness).

      After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant
counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-