Case ID: f-appx_417/html/0352-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney T. HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-4975.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.
    Decided: March 18, 2011.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Perry D. McDaniel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodney T. Hoffman pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of storage of hazardous waste without a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) (2006). On appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a downward departure under Application Notes 7 and 8 to the Commentary for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Q1.2 (2009). We dismiss the appeal.

This court does not have jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure so long as the district court recognized the authority to depart. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-81 (4th Cir.1990). “Because the district court’s refusal to depart downward followed its conclusion that the evidence did not support a departure, its ruling on this issue is not renewable on appeal.” United, States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir.2004).

Because we conclude that the district court recognized the authority to depart and found that the evidence did not support a departure, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.