United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 06-2863
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                  * District Court for the
                                          * Western District of Missouri.
Randolph D. Jackson,                      *
                                          *          [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                   *
                                     ___________

                               Submitted: September 5, 2007
                                  Filed: September 10, 2007
                                   ___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                        ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Randolph D. Jackson appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of PCP with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Jackson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.




      1
        The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
       We disagree. The district court considered Jackson’s advisory Guidelines
imprisonment range (188-235 months as a career offender) along with other relevant
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s sentence
determination. See United States v. Booker, 

, 258-62 (2005) (§ 3553(a)
factors will guide reasonableness review); United States v. Haack, 

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

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

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




                                         -2-