United States v. Matthew Hanson, No. 06-3120 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of a sentence imposed after a Rule 35(b) reduction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3120 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Matthew L. Hanson, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: August 28, 2007 Filed: September 14, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.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, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 135 F.3d 598, 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, 479 F.3d 955, 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, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not expand § 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
