United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-3605
                                   ___________

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                                        *    [UNPUBLISHED]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

                             Submitted: October 18, 2007
                                Filed: November 1, 2007
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Miguel Garcia-Orosco pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine (Count 1), which subjected him to a 10-year minimum prison term,
see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A); and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-
trafficking crime (Count 7), which subjected him to a mandatory consecutive 5-year
minimum prison term, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 2. At sentencing, the district
court1 determined an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 168-210 months for
Count 1, granted the government’s motion for a substantial-assistance reduction, and

      1
       The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
sentenced Garcia-Orosco to consecutive prison terms of 80 months on Count 1 and
60 months on Count 7. On appeal, Garcia-Orosco’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing the 140-month sentence is
unreasonable because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors indicate a lesser sentence would
suffice to meet sentencing goals.

       We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v.
Booker, 

, 260-64 (2005) (standard of review); United States v. Berni, 

, 992 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (while extent of substantial-assistance
departure remains unreviewable after Booker, sentence is still subject to overall
review for reasonableness guided by § 3553(a) factors). Nothing in the record
suggests that the district court considered an improper or irrelevant factor, failed to
consider a relevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate
factors. See United States v. Haack, 

, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating ways
in which abuse of discretion may occur).

      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.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-