United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-1956
                                   ___________

United States of America,            *
                                     *
           Appellee,                 *
                                     * Appeal from the United States
     v.                              * District Court for the
                                     * District of Nebraska.
Marco Antonio Castillo-Ramirez,      *
                                     *    [UNPUBLISHED]
           Appellant.                *
                                ___________

                             Submitted: June 7, 2007
                                Filed: June 13, 2007
                                 ___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Marco Castillo-Ramirez appeals the 87-month sentence the district court1
imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute at least 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846. Castillo-Ramirez’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 low end of the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

      1
      The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of
Nebraska.
        We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable. In determining the sentence, the
district court considered Castillo-Ramirez’s Guidelines imprisonment range, along
with other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 

,
261 (2005) (§ 3553(a) factors will guide reasonableness review). Moreover, nothing
in the record suggests the district court failed to consider a relevant factor that should
have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant
factor, or considered only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors committed
a plain error of judgment. See United States v. Haack, 

, 1003-04 (8th
Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; defining
ways in which abuse of discretion may occur).

       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-