United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 03-1045
                                  ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
            Appellee,                  *
                                       * Appeal from the United States
      v.                               * District Court for the Northern
                                       * District of Iowa.
David K. Feddersen,                    *
                                       *    [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                 *
                                  ___________

                         Submitted: September 25, 2003
                             Filed: September 30, 2003
                                  ___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       David K. Feddersen challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he entered a plea under North Carolina v. Alford, 

, 37 (1970), to
threatening to use anthrax to assault or kill federal employees, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). At sentencing, the district court denied Feddersen an
acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment
to be followed by one year supervised release.


      1
       The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
      On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

(1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility
reduction, given that the shortcomings in Feddersen’s guilty plea “reasonably
appeared to be a product of [his] mental illness.” After careful review of the record,
we find that the district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-
responsibility reduction. See United States v. Arellano, 

, 1034 (8th Cir.
2002) (standard of review).

       Upon reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-