Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Perdis Cotton, 04-3869 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 04-3869 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 19, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-3869 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Perdis Cotton, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: January 12, 2006 Filed: January 19, 2006 _ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Perdis Cotton appeals the 150-month sentence the district court1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
More
                    United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 04-3869
                                   ___________

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                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]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

                             Submitted: January 12, 2006
                                Filed: January 19, 2006
                                 ___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Perdis Cotton appeals the 150-month sentence the district court1 imposed after
granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce
Cotton’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. His counsel has
moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967),
arguing that the reduction should have been even greater. Counsel’s argument is
unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 
135 F.3d 598
, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam) (extent of Rule 35(b) reduction is unreviewable); cf. United States v.

      1
        The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
Williams, 
324 F.3d 1049
, 1049-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (refusal to depart
further under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 is not reviewable unless defendant makes “substantial
showing” that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive).

      Having reviewed the resentencing record under Penson v. Ohio, 
488 U.S. 75
,
80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant defense counsel’s
motion to withdraw, and we affirm.
                       ______________________________




                                        -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer