Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01731/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laron L. Newman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1731

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Laron L. Newman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 2, 2007

Filed: May 7, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laron Newman (Newman) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed upon him after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Newman’s sentence for his post-sentencing

substantial assistance. Newman’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court abused its

discretion by not taking into account the level of Newman’s cooperation and his

Appellate Case: 06-1731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2007 Entry ID: 3306530
-2-

rehabilitative efforts in prison when deciding how far to depart from the advisory

Guidelines. 

Counsel’s argument is without merit. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d

598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (concluding a challenge to the extent of a

sentence reduction upon the government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable

because the appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); United

States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding a court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b)

reduction; and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not expand

§ 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions). Cf.

United States v. Pepper, 412 F.3d 995, 998-99 (8th Cir. 2005) (deciding only

assistance facts, and not other factors, can be considered in a substantial assistance

downward departure).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2007 Entry ID: 3306530