1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2388

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri

Asension Valenzuela-Montoya, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 2, 2000

 Filed: May 19, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Asension Valenzuela-Montoya appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1for the Western District of Missouri upon his guilty plea to aiding and

abetting the possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced appellant to 210

months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief and
-2-

moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For

reversal, counsel suggests that the district court erred in (1) treating ValenzuelaMontoya as a career offender because his prior controlled-substance felonies “do not

rise to the level of severity necessary to justify career offender status”; (2) denying his

downward-departure motion, in which he alleged that his criminal history was

significantly overrepresented; (3) denying the two-level downward departure

recommended by the government, which it based on Valenzuela-Montoya’s consent

to deportation; (4) treating certain seized currency as the proceeds of methamphetamine

sales and using it to calculate his offense level; and (5) imposing too harsh a sentence.

Although we granted Valenzuela-Montoya permission to file a pro se supplemental

brief, he has not done so. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

First, we conclude that Valenzuela-Montoya was properly classified as a career

offender. The contention that his convictions for selling small quantities of cocaine are

insufficiently severe to justify career-offender status lacks merit, because the

convictions satisfy the Guidelines definition of controlled-substance offenses. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(b). Next, we conclude that the district court’s

denial of both Valenzuela-Montoya’s and the government’s downward-departure

motions are unreviewable. See United States v. Hernandez-Reyes, 114 F.3d 800, 801-

03 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Shaw, 94 F.3d 438, 444 (8th Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, 519 U.S. 1100 (1997).

We need not consider the challenge to the district court’s treatment of the seized

currency because it did not affect Valenzuela-Montoya’s sentence: his offense level

was ultimately determined by virtue of his career-offender status. See United States

v. Darden, 70 F.3d 1507, 1548 n.17 (8th Cir. 1995) (declining to review argument

which would not affect sentence), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1149 and 518 U.S. 1026

(1996). Finally, there is no jurisdictional basis for reviewing Valenzuela-Montoya’s

sentence merely because he considers it too harsh. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (grounds
-3-

for appeal of sentence by defendant). It was, in fact, at the bottom of the Guidelines

range. Cf. United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)

(sentence not reviewable merely because it is at top of Guidelines range).

After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous

issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.