Case ID: f-appx_450/html/0389-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30280
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 17, 2011.
    Spiro G. Latsis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higgin-son, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robin Elise Schulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roma Ajubita Kent, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Having pleaded guilty to mail fraud, Juan Owens appeals his 14-month sentence. Owens argues that the district court erroneously assumed that the Sentencing Guidelines in his case did not authorize a split sentence consisting of part imprisonment and part probation or supervised release with home confinement. He urges that his within-guidelines sentence must be vacated because the sentencing court committed a procedural error by incorrectly concluding that granting his request for a split sentence would constitute a downward departure.

Our authority to review sentences is limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision not to impose a split sentence. United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 310 F.3d 792, 793 (5th Cir.2002). As the record in this case shows that the sentencing court was aware that it had the discretion to impose a split sentence, but declined to do so, we lack statutory jurisdiction under § 3742. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.