1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 03-1310/2981

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Steven Richard Young, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 5, 2003 Filed: September 10, 2003

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Steven Richard Young appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Appeal No. 03-1310), and from the district court’s order subsequently denying his pro se request for information (Appeal No. 03-2981). We affirm in each appeal.-2- At sentencing the government moved for a substantial-assistance departure. The district court granted the motion, reducing Young’s sentencing range by 35%, and sentencing him to 173 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. In Appeal No. 03-1310, Young’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court instead should have reduced Young’s sentence by 50% given his “super acceptance of responsibility.” The district court’s decision not to depart further, however, is unreviewable. See United States v. Dutcher , 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993).
In a supplemental pro se brief, Young also raises a number of pro se arguments, each of which fails: (1) Young’s unc onditional guilty plea forecloses his illegalsearch and involuntary-confession arguments, as well as his contention that the government used information he provided during his cooperation to indict him on more serious charges, see United States v. Arrellano , 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000); (2) his related argument that his cooperation information should not have been used to calculate his sentence is foreclosed by his plea-agreement stipulations, see United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); (3) during the plea hearing the magistrate judge adequately apprised him that the court would have to consider the applicable Guidelines and could depart under certain circumstances; (4) the district court was not required to consider Young’s pro se departure motion, because he was represented, seeUnited States v. Agofsky , 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 909 (1994); (5) his codefendant’s guilty plea to a lesser charge did not invalidate his own indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7; and (6) the alleged defects in counsel’s representation are not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).
We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment in Appeal No. 03-1310 is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We make no ruling, however, on Young’s motion for correction of sentence and his-3- related motion for appointment of counsel, both of which he directed to the district court after he filed Appeal No. 03-1310, but which were forwarded to this court. We therefore remand these motions for docketing and rulings in the district court.
As to Appeal No. 03-2981, we find the district court did not err in denying Young’s motion for copies of the sentencing documents of individuals connected to his case. See United States v. Skorniak , 59 F.3d 750, 758 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 980 (1995); United States v. Eagle , 586 F.2d 1193, 1197 (8th Cir. 1978).
Accordingly, we affirm in both appeals.
A true copy.

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