Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03120/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew L. Hanson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3120

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Matthew L. Hanson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 28, 2007

Filed: September 14, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew L. Hanson (Hanson) appeals the 144-month sentence the district court1

imposed after granting the government’s post-judgment Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Hanson’s sentence based on substantial assistance.

Hanson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Hanson’s extensive cooperation warranted

a 50% sentence reduction rather than the 20% reduction the district court applied.

Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599

Appellate Case: 06-3120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Entry ID: 3351684
-2-

(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding 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) (concluding the court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b) reduction, because

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not expand § 3742(a) to include

appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions).

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

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

and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2007 Entry ID: 3351684