United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 04-3380
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Western District of Missouri.
Phillip Nelson Suddarth,                *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: July 22, 2005
                                 Filed: July 26, 2005
                                 ___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

     Phillip Suddarth appeals the district court’s1 revocation of his probation and
imposition of a term of imprisonment. We affirm.

      Suddarth pleaded guilty to making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001(a)(2), and was sentenced to 3 years probation. The district court later revoked
probation and sentenced Suddarth to 6 months in prison and 2 years supervised
release, after finding that Suddarth had violated the terms of his probation. On

      1
       The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing that the court should have ordered a drug
treatment program rather than to revoke probation and impose a period of
incarceration.

       The argument in the Anders brief fails. We find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s decision to revoke probation. See United States v. Leigh, 

, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review). At the revocation
hearing, Suddarth admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, see United
States v. Young, 

, 65 (8th Cir. 1985), and there is nothing in the record
to suggest the court felt bound to revoke probation rather than to order additional
drug treatment, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., comment. (n.6). Further, the sentence
imposed was within the advisory range suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 3565(a)(2), 3553(a).

      Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988), we
find no nonfrivolous issues.

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




                                         -2-