Deandre Robinson appeals the 90-month prison sentence that the district court 1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence based on substantial assistance. Robinson’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the reduction was inadequate in view of Robinson’s cooperation with the government.

Counsel’s argument is unavailing. See United States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeal of district court’s decision on Rule 35(b) motion; United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not expand 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions); 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 § 3742(a)). 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.

The judgment is affirmed.