Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arrmon H. DAUGHERTY, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-11
Citations: 420 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: Nos. 11-1706, 11-1707
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arrmon H. DAUGHERTY, Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arrmon H. DAUGHERTY, Appellant.
Nos. 11-1706, 11-1707.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2011.
Filed: July 11, 2011.
Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued, Lincoln, NE, for Appellee.
Arrmon H. Daugherty, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Michael Hansen, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, argued, Lincoln, NE, for Appellant.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Arrmon Daugherty challenges the district court's amended judgments reducing his sentences pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). On appeal, he argues that the extent of the reductions did not adequately reflect his assistance to the government and his attempts to rehabilitate himself.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review Daugherty's Rule 35(b) sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (defendant may seek review of an otherwise final sentence if sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as result of incorrect application of sentencing guidelines; (3) is greater than sentence specified in applicable guidelines range; or (4) was imposed for offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable); United States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (jurisdiction over appeal of Rule 35(b) sentence is governed by § 3742(a); dismissing inmate's appeal of Rule 35(b) sentence for lack of jurisdiction because arguments raised did not satisfy § 3742(a) criteria); United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (concluding that inmate's challenge to extent of sentence reduction was unreviewable because he was not appealing sentence based on any criteria listed in § 3742(a)).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Daugherty about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.
. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.