Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roosevelt FRANKLIN, Jr., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-22
Citations: 6 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: No. 00-2976
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roosevelt FRANKLIN, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roosevelt FRANKLIN, Jr., Appellant.
No. 00-2976.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 2001.
Filed March 22, 2001.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District Judge.
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roosevelt Franklin, Jr., a former corrections officer, pleaded guilty to assaulting an inmate. Franklin later filed a motion for a downward departure from the applicable sentencing guidelines range, arguing his aberrant behavior and the minor degree of injury took his case outside the heartland of excessive force cases. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 (permitting departure for mitigating circumstances of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration in formulating the guidelines). At sentencing, the district court heard testimony from several witnesses and argument from both parties. The court noted it had reviewed Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996), and concluded, "considering the totality of the circumstances," "I just don't think [a departure is] justified by the evidence that I have heard," "even though . [the sentence is] harsh in your case." On appeal, Franklin argues the district court erroneously believed it lacked authority to depart from the guidelines range. We disagree. The district court's remarks make clear that it recognized its authority to depart, but did not believe the circumstances of Franklin's case justified departure. Thus, having no jurisdiction to review the district court's decision not to depart, see United States v. Shepard, 207 F.3d 455, 457 (8th Cir.2000), we affirm the district court.
The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.