United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3061
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Western District of Missouri.
Roger Roy Perry,                        *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: August 10, 2007
                                Filed: August 16, 2007
                                 ___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Roger Roy Perry pleaded guilty to possessing counterfeit currency, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 472, and conspiring to make and possess counterfeit currency, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471-472. The district court1 sentenced him within
the advisory Guidelines range to 51 months in prison and 3 years of supervised
release. Perry challenges that sentence on appeal. His counsel has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 

(1967), and has moved to withdraw, and Perry has
filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

      1
        The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
       First, the district court’s discretionary denial of Perry’s downward-departure
motion is unreviewable. See United States v. Morell, 

, 1164 (8th Cir.
2005). Also, Perry has not overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness that
attaches to his sentence by showing that the court committed a clear error of judgment
in determining that a within-Guidelines-range sentence was appropriate despite his
poor health. See Rita v. United States, 

, 2468 (2007); United States
v. Haack, 

, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005). Next, the district court was entitled
to engage in judicial fact-finding within an advisory Guidelines system. See United
States v. Fazio, 

, 657 (8th Cir. 2007). Last, Perry has not made a
substantial threshold showing that the government acted unconstitutionally or in bad
faith by not filing a substantial-assistance downward-departure motion. See United
States v. Marks, 

, 976 (8th Cir. 2001). After reviewing the record
independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), we conclude that there
are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                          ______________________________




                                         -2-