United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-1146
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
                                         * District Court for the
      v.                                 * Western District of Arkansas.
                                         *
                                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
Rigoberto Salas-Castro,                  *
                                         *
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: November 13, 2007
                                 Filed: November 15, 2007
                                  ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Rigoberto Salas-Castro appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after
he pleaded guilty to an immigration charge, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
(b)(2), 6 U.S.C. § 202(3) and (4), and 6 U.S.C. § 557. Salas-Castro’s counsel has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), and moves to withdraw. For
reversal, he argues that Salas-Castro’s sentence, which was imposed at the bottom of
the uncontested Guidelines range, is unreasonable.

      1
        The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.
       We review Salas-Castro’s sentence for reasonableness, and given that it falls
within the advisory Guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v.
United States, 

, 2462 (2007) (discussing presumption). We see no
basis in the record for concluding that Salas-Castro’s sentence is unreasonable, see
United States v. Haack, 

, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (factors); and further,
after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

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




                                         -2-