Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01487/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01487-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damion L. Davis
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. 06-1487

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Damion L. Davis, also known as Boo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2007

Filed: May 11, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Damion L. Davis (Davis) appeals the district court’s1

 sentence of 108 months’

imprisonment after the court granted the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal

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

assistance. Davis’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), seeking permission to withdraw and arguing Davis’s extensive cooperation

warranted a greater reduction. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States

v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding a challenge to

Appellate Case: 06-1487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2007 Entry ID: 3308609
-2-

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; 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 affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2007 Entry ID: 3308609