DocketNumber： 14-2299
Judges： Smith, Bowman, Colloton
Filed Date： 12/16/2014
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/6/2024
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2299 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kelly R. Randall, also known as Peter Dick lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: December 11, 2014 Filed: December 16, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kelly Randall appeals the district court’s1 amended judgment reducing his sentences under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), upon motion of the 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. government, for providing substantial assistance. On appeal, he argues that (1) the sentences were imposed in violation of the law, because the court improperly considered an unrelated factor in determining the extent of the reductions; and (2) the extent of the reductions undervalued his assistance and its cost to him personally. We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, however, because it does not meet the criteria for sentencing appeals, as set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). See United States v. Haskins,479 F.3d 955
, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction to hear Rule 35(b) sentence appeal that does not satisfy § 3742(a) criteria). Specifically, the district court’s purported consideration of a factor unrelated to Randall’s substantial assistance in determining the extent of the reduction is not a violation of the law, see United States v. Rublee,655 F.3d 835
, 839 (8th Cir. 2011); and Randall’s challenge to the extent of the reduction is not reviewable, see United States v. Coppedge,135 F.3d 598
, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (inmate’s challenge to extent of sentence reduction was unreviewable because it was not based on § 3742(a) criteria). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-