United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 02-3231
                                  ___________

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                                       *    [UNPUBLISHED]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

                         Submitted: June 6, 2003
                             Filed: June 12, 2003
                                  ___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

       William John Barber pleaded guilty to using fire to commit a federal felony
(mail fraud), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(1). The district court1 sentenced
Barber to 120 months imprisonment, as mandated by statute and the Sentencing
Guidelines, and 3 years supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(1) (whoever uses
fire to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in federal court “shall . . . be
sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years”); U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(a) (Guidelines sentence
for defendant convicted under § 844(h)(1) “is the term of imprisonment required by

      1
        The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
statute”). On appeal, Barber’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 

(1967), raising the issues whether there was a
factual basis at the plea hearing to establish a section 844(h)(1) offense, and whether
the statutorily mandated 10-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Barber contends that his counsel below was
ineffective.

       The district court had a sufficient factual basis to accept Barber’s guilty plea:
his stipulations in his plea agreement, his oral confirmation of those stipulations at
the plea hearing, and the unobjected-to facts in the presentence report established that
Barber directed and aided a codefendant to set fire to a building Barber owned so he
could submit a fraudulent insurance claim, and that he used the mail in furtherance
of the scheme. See United States v. Ruiz, 

, 1503-04 (1st Cir. 1997)
(defendants “used” fire to commit mail fraud within meaning of § 844(h)(1) where
defendants set fire to clothing store to carry out scheme to deceive insurance
company; fire was “the means” by which defendants created appearance of apparent
loss). In addition, Barber’s 10-year sentence, mandated by both the statute and the
Guidelines, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Farmer, 

, 840 (8th Cir.) (level
of punishment imposed for crimes is business of Congress, not courts; only in very
narrow circumstances has punishment within statutory limits been held to violate
Eighth Amendment; Congress has power to make sentences mandatory and to
withdraw all sentencing discretion from courts, except in capital cases), cert. denied,

(1996); United States v. Foote, 

, 1401 (8th Cir. 1990)
(as matter of law, sentences imposed pursuant to Guidelines do not violate Eighth
Amendment), cert. denied, 

(1991). Last, Barber’s ineffective-assistance
claim is more appropriately raised in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See United States v. Martin, 

, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).




                                          -2-
       Upon careful review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 

, 80 (1988),
we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We
also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

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




                                         -3-