Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): FBI qualifies as an extraordinary effort at restitution, and a downward departure beyond acceptance of responsibility is warranted. The district court understood its power to depart but declined to grant defendant’s motion. We lack the power to review the district court’s decision because the court understood it had the power to depart. See, e.g., United States v. Loud Hawk, 245 F.3d 667 (8th Cir.2001) and United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 959, 965 (8th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the sentence of the district court is affirmed. 1 . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Court Judge lor the Western District of Missouri, Western Division. 2 . See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 11 (1998). See also United States v. Saffeels, 39 F.3d 833, 837-38 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Moskal, 211 F.3d 1070, 1074 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category (B) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history (C) holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category (D) holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant (E) holding that a court may depart upward based upon a third partys injury in an assault case
Output (English): holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant