1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3569

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Mayra G. Carrillo, also known * as Myra E. Carillo, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Mayra G. Ferman DeRomero, also * known as Myra Carello, also known * as Mayra Carrello, also known as * Mayra G. Ferman Moreno, *
* Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 10, 2007 Filed: August 27, 2007

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

___________ PER CURIAM.
Mayra Carrillo appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after she pleaded guilty--pursuant to a written plea agreement --to conspiring to possess marijuana with-2- intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count I); and possessing a firearm in relation to a drug-traffi cking conspiracy, and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Count II). After denying Carrillo’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea to Count II and to withdraw her agreement to a forfeiture of $24,598 in seized drug proceeds, the district court sentenced Carrillo to the statutory minimum of 5 years in pris on on Count I and a consecutive 5-year term on Count II, and ordered the fo rfeiture. Carrillo’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should have granted Carrillo’s motion and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.

We conclude that the district court di d not abuse its disc retion in refusing to allow Carrillo to withdraw her guilty pl ea to Count II and her agreement to the forfeiture. Through an interpreter, Carrillo affirmed unequivocally at numerous points during the plea hearing that she underst ood and knowingly signed the plea agreement- -which included a complete description of the charges and penalties associated with Count II, and her specific agreement to th e forfeiture--and repeat edly expressed her understanding of the charges and the implicati ons of pleading guilty to Count II as the district court explained them at the hearing. SeeFed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B) (defendant may withdraw plea if she can show fair and just reason for requesting withdrawal); United States v. Moore , 481 F.3d 1113, 1114 (8th Cir. 2007) (abuse-ofdiscretion standard; guilty plea should not be set aside lightly; affirming district court’s denial of request to withdraw plea and rejecting defendant’s claim that he did not fully understand ramifications of plea wh ere district court fully advised him of those ramifications at pl ea hearing and defendant te stified under oath that he understood them), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. May 25, 2007) (No. 06-11595). Further, the consecutive 5-year senten ce on Count II was the mandatory minimum. See18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (D)(ii) (p erson who possesses firearm during any crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime shall be sentenced to minimum of 5 years in prison; term of imprisonment shall not run concurrently withany other terms of-3- imprisonment imposed for crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime during which firearm was possessed). Finally, any ineff ective-assistance claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding rather than on direct appeal. SeeUnited States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. A ccordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the sentence. In addition, we deny Carrillo’s pending motion for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________