*534 [UNPUBLISHED]

Freeman Johnson (Johnson) appeals the 141-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Johnson’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. Johnson’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing Johnson’s extensive cooperation warranted a 50% sentence reduction rather than a 40% reduction. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Coppedge, 135 F.3d 598, 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 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); United States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider reasonableness of sentence following 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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.