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Little Mouse,                          * [UNPUBLISHED]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, 

(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, 

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

(2005), did not expand 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to include appellate review of
discretionary sentencing reductions); United States v. Coppedge, 

, 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, 

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




                                        -2-