### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-14-2002 

# U S A v . S ees

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 1-2418

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . S e e s " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 121. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/121N OT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 01-2418

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

THOMAS SEES, Appellant

__________________________________________ _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00247 (Honorable Joel A. Pisano)

___________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34 .1(a) January 17, 2002

Before: SCIRICA and ROSENN, Circuit Judges, and KA NE, District Judge*

(Filed February 13, 2002)

*The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States Dist rict Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

______________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

______________

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

This is a sentencing appeal. Thomas Sees pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to a supersedi ng information charging that onOctober 27, 1999, he knowingly and intentionally us ed a communication

facility (a telephone) to facilitate the distribution and the p ossession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a felony under 21 U.S.C.  841(a)(1), in violation of 21 U.S.C.  843(b). On appeal, Sees contends the District Cour t erred in failing to grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G.  5K2.0 based on extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation. "We lack jurisdiction to review a refusal to d epart downward 'when the district court, knowing it may do so, nonetheless determines that departure is not warranted.'" United States v. Sally, 116 F.3d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 19 97) (quoting United States v. McQuilkin, 97 F.3d 723, 729 (3d Cir. 1996)). At se ntencing, the District Court explicitly articulated more than once that it had the power to depart from the Guidelines based on defendant's post-offense rehabilitation efforts. T he court framed the issue before it as whether it should "exercise the discretion that I r ecognize I have in order to make a downward departure" on the basis of post-offense re habilitation. (App. 62). The District Court's recognition of its authority in this regard also was reflected in the court's willingness to hear testimony concerning defendant' s post-offense rehabilitation, and in the court's discussion with counsel concerning whet her to depart in view of the facts of this particular case. The District Court decided, however, that defendant's post-offense conduct was not "so exceptional" as to warrant a do wnward departure from the Guidelines. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to review th e District Court's refusal of a downward departure in this matter. The appeal is d ismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing opinion.

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica Circuit Ju dgeDATED: February 13, 2002