Damion L. Davis (Davis) appeals the district court’s 1 sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment after the court granted the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Davis’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. Davis’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking permission to withdraw and arguing Davis’s extensive cooperation warranted a greater reduction. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 599 (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; United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.