United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                  No. 06-3120
                                  ___________

United States of America,              *
                                       *
            Appellee,                  *
                                       * Appeal from the United States
      v.                               * District Court for the
                                       * District of Nebraska.
Matthew L. Hanson,                     *
                                       *      [UNPUBLISHED]
            Appellant.                 *
                                  ___________

                             Submitted: August 28, 2007
                                Filed: September 14, 2007
                                 ___________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Matthew L. Hanson (Hanson) 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 Hanson’s sentence based on substantial assistance.
Hanson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 

(1967), arguing Hanson’s extensive cooperation warranted
a 50% sentence reduction rather than the 20% reduction the district court applied.
Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 

, 599

      1
        The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
(8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding a challenge to the extent of a sentence reduction
upon the government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable because the appeal was
not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); United States v. Haskins, 

, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (concluding the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b) reduction, because
United States v. Booker, 

(2005), did not expand § 3742(a) to include
appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions).

      Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 

,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and we affirm.
                       ______________________________




                                          -2-