Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony R. WEST, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 158 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: No. 04-2377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony R. WEST, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony R. WEST, Appellant.
No. 04-2377.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 7, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
Gregg R. Coonrod, Michael S. Oliver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.
Anthony R. West, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Federal prisoner Anthony West appeals the judgment of the district court entered upon a motion by the government to reduce West's sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 based on his substantial assistance. The court reduced West's sentence from 120 months to 90 months in prison.
West argues that the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) committed prosecutorial misconduct in connection with the Rule 35 motion by alleging that West had provided certain assistance, a disclosure that tarnished his reputation and threat ened the lives of West and his family. We find that West has not shown any error, plain or otherwise, in the prosecutor's actions in connection with the Rule 35 resentencing. The AUSA recounted West's cooperation in order for West to receive a downward departure, not to put him in any danger, and West agreed at the resentencing hearing that he had provided the cooperation attributed to him. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (plain error standard).
West's remaining claims are not properly before us, as they involve ineffective assistance of counsel — a matter for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — or they relate to his original sentence and either were or could have been raised in his prior appeal. See United States v. Stuckey, 255 F.3d 528, 530-31 (8th Cir.) ("law of the case" doctrine governs issues decided in prior appeal), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1011, 122 S.Ct. 498, 151 L.Ed.2d 409 (2001); United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir.1995) (where party could have raised issue in prior appeal but did not, court later hearing same case need not consider matter). West's section 2255 motion is not the subject of this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed, and the motion to correct plain error is denied.
. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.