Onorio Noriega-Sanchez appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Nebraska after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. The district court sentenced Noriega-Sanchez to 120 months imprisonment, the statutory minimum, and 5 years supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising for reversal that Noriega-Sanchez’s sentence is too severe. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Initially, we note that Noriega-Sanchez stipulated to a drug quantity that triggered the imposition of the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal). In any event, Noriega-Sanchez’s severity argument fails, because mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 859 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Having found no nonfrivolous issues following our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We further deny Noriega-Sanchez’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm.