United States v. Howard Eugene Liner

1The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 court 1 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 of 2 --

-2-
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 of 2 --