1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2582

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Willie Perkins, also known as * Uncle Boo, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 23, 2008 Filed: May 15, 2008

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Acknowledging that he was subject to the career-offender sentencing guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Willie Perkins pleaded gu ilty to distributing cocaine base after having previously been convic ted of one or more felony drug offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 851. The district court 1 granted a 15% substantial-assistance reduction pursuan t to the government’s motion, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, calculated an advisory guidelines imprisonment range-2- of 223-278 months, and sentenced Perkins to 223 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdr aw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Perkins’s criminal history was overstated because of the career-offender enhancement, making the sentence unreasonable. In his pro se supplem ental brief, Perkins argues that his plea was not intelligent because he did not understand the career-offender enhancement, and that his counsel was ineffective. Perkins may not challenge his guilty plea in this direct appeal because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea. SeeUnited States v. Villareal-Amarillas , 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 989 (2007). Any ineffective-assistance claims s hould be raised in collateral proceedings. SeeUnited States v. Cook , 356 F.3d 913, 919-20 (8th Cir. 2004). We conclude that Perkins’s sentence, which was within the advisory guidelines range, is not unreasonable. We presume thata sentence within the advisory guideline range is reasonable, seeUnited States v. Harris , 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) (court of appeals accords sentence within a dvisory Guidelines range presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008). The record demonstrates that the court considered Perkins’s history and characteristics, and specifically discussed the nature and circumstances of his career-o ffender predicate offenses. Nothing in the record suggests that the court misapplie d the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Harris , 493 F.3d at 932. After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Acco rdingly, we affirm. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to the conditions that counsel promptly comply with the requirements of Part V of this Court’s Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act by advising Perkins of the procedures for fili ng a petition for writ of certiorari pro se, and-3- that counsel also advise Perkins of the procedures for filing a petition for rehearing pro se.

______________________________