Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30553/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30553-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin K. Sullivan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30553

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARVIN K. SULLIVAN,

 DefendantAppellant.

----------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CR-60049-1

---------------------------------------------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marvin K. Sullivan pleaded guilty to making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of

26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Sullivan challenges modifications to the Bureau of Prisons policy of placing

offenders who have received sentences of imprisonment in community confinement centers and he

also argues that the district court erred when it failed to grant him a downward departure pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0.

 Case: 03-30553 Document: 0051388262 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2004
-2-

Sullivan’s challenge to the Bureau of Prisons policy was dismissed by this court’s previous

order issued in this litigation on November 5, 2003. See, e.g., United States v. Melendez, 279 F.3d

16, 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (a sentencing court’s non-binding recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons

is not reviewable, and the omission of such a recommendation is also a non-appealable event).

This court has jurisdiction to hear Sullivan’s appeal of the district court’s denial of a

downward departure only if the refusal to depart was premised upon a mistaken conclusion that the

guidelines do not permit such a departure, but we lack jurisdiction if the refusal was premised on a

determination that a departure was not warranted under the facts of the case. United States v.

Lugman, 130 F.3d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1997). The record reflects considerable analysis by the district

court of whether the circumstances ofthis case were such that a downward departure was warranted.

Asthe court did not misapprehend its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines, we lack jurisdiction

to hear this appeal. Id.; see also United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 404 (5th Cir. 1997) (the

district court’s statement that it was obligated by law to sentence the defendant within a particular

guideline range did not indicate mistaken belief that it lacked authority to depart downward).

Accordingly, Sullivan’s appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s motion for leave to file

supplemental brief is DENIED as moot.

 Case: 03-30553 Document: 0051388262 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2004