Case ID: f-appx_27/html/0132-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, v. Steven BROWN, Appellant.
    No. 01-1924.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Opinion Filed Jan. 29, 2002.
    Before ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Because we write for the benefit of the parties, the background of the appeal is not set out.

We reject defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a downward departure. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), a district court “may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant’s subsequent substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person, in accordance with the guideline and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commissions under 28 U.S.C. § 994.” The record is clear that the District Court gave due consideration to the assistance provided by the defendant, determined that he did not provide substantial assistance as required by Rule 35(b), and exercised its discretion to sentence the defendant within the appropriate range provided by the Sentencing Guidelines.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward. See, e.g., United States v. McBroom, 124 F.3d 533, 541 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1997); United States v. Mummert, 34 F.3d 201, 205 (3d Cir.1994). Accordingly, appellate jurisdiction is lacking, and we dismiss defendant’s appeal.