United States v. Marshall Box , 253 F. App'x 616 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1406
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Marshall T. Box, also known as         *
    Little Mouse,                          * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 2, 2007
    Filed: November 8, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Marshall Box 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 Box’s sentence based on substantial assistance. Box’s counsel has
    moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), arguing that Box’s cooperation, age, and other factors warranted a 50-60%
    sentence reduction rather than the lower reduction the district court applied.
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
    of Nebraska.
    Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Haskins, 
    479 F.3d 955
    , 957
    (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider reasonableness of
    sentence following Rule 35(b) reduction; United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    (2005), did not expand 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a) to include appellate review of
    discretionary sentencing reductions); United States v. Coppedge, 
    135 F.3d 598
    , 599
    (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (challenge to extent of sentence reduction upon
    government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable because appeal was not based on
    any criteria listed in § 3742(a)).
    Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
    to withdraw, and we affirm.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1406

Citation Numbers: 253 F. App'x 616

Filed Date: 11/8/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023