United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 13-1829
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

               Selvin Garcia-Garcia, also known as Jose Villarreal

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: November 13, 2013
                           Filed: November 18, 2013
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Selvin Garcia-Garcia pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture and
possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of actual methamphetamine
on premises where a child was present or resided. The District Court1 imposed a
sentence of 135 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal,
Garcia-Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that Garcia-Garcia’s guilty plea was involuntary because Garcia-
Garcia mistakenly believed that he was eligible for safety-valve relief. Counsel
suggests that the interpreter who helped counsel and Garcia-Garcia discuss the plea
agreement may not have properly communicated its contents to Garcia-Garcia, who
speaks only Spanish. Garcia-Garcia has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

       Garcia-Garcia did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea in the District
Court. His claim is therefore not cognizable in this direct appeal. See United States
v. Murphy, 

, 716 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that a claim that defendant’s
guilty plea was involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal unless first presented
to the district court).

      We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




      1
        The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-