Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02204/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02204-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Moree
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

l 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

t1nit,d lW.-Coat'11l .Appnla 

Tenth ef r'C!Uft 

AUG 1 0 1990 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL MOREE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2204 

(D.C. No. 89-132JP-02) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Brie-f s: 

Before MOORE, MCWILLIAMS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Moree appeals his sentence imposed under the 

sentencing guidelines. Mr. Moree contends the district court 

should have departed downward because the presentence report 

overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. We 

conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to review the district 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2204 Document: 010110040766 Date Filed: 08/10/1990 Page: 1 
court's discretionary decision not to depart downward and dismiss 

this appeal. 

We have ruled that a district court ' s refusal to depart 

downward from the applicable guideline range is not appealable. 

United States v. Richardson, 901 F.2d 867, 870 (10th Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1528-30 (10th Cir. 1990). 

In Richardson and Davis, we explained that downward departures do 

not fall within the statutory standard of review provided by the 

Sentencing Reform Act and codified at 18 U.S . C. § 3742. 

In this case, Mr. Moree contends his criminal history was 

overstated because the presentence report "double-counted" his 

misdemeanor battery conviction by assessing two extra points for 

commission of the offense while he was on probation. Thus, he 

argues the district court abused its discretion and should have 

decided to depart downward based upon S 4Al.3. 

As in Davis, Mr. Moree does not allege the district court's 

decision was made in violation of law or that it resulted from a 

misapplication of the guidelines. The district court's decision 

under S 4Al.3 not to depart is a discretionary decision which is 

not reviewable by this court. See Richardson, 901 F.2d at 870 

( "That a district court abused its discretion in failing to depart 

from the guidelines plainly is not a basis for appeal.") 

DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2204 Document: 010110040766 Date Filed: 08/10/1990 Page: 2