United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 03-4073
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
                                        * District Court for the
      v.                                * Northern District of Iowa
                                        *
Kendall William Jacobs,                 * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                        *
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: May 19, 2004

                                  Filed: May 21, 2004
                                   ___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Kendall W. Jacobs pleaded guilty to willfully failing to pay child support, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3). The district court1 declined to impose a split
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(d)(2), sentenced Jacobs to 11 months imprisonment
and 1 year supervised release, and ordered restitution of $67,979.39. On appeal,
Jacobs’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.


      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
California, 

(1967), suggesting that the district court abused its
discretion in not granting Jacobs a split sentence.

       We find that the district court understood its authority to impose a split
sentence, and thus its discretionary decision not to do so is unreviewable. See 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Smotherman, 

, 989 (8th Cir.) (per
curiam) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review district court’s exercise of
discretion in setting sentence within properly determined Guidelines range), cert.
denied, 

(2003); United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 

, 793-94
(5th Cir. 2002) (district court’s discretionary refusal to impose split sentence under
§ 5C1.1(d) does not fall within criteria listed in § 3742(a)). We also have carefully
reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), and have
found no nonfrivolous issues.

      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-