Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RODRIGUEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 89 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 03-20692
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RODRIGUEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo RODRIGUEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20692.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arturo Ridriguez-Canales ("Rodriguez") appeals his sentence, imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry. He claims the district court mistakenly believed it did not have authority to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines based on the double counting of his previous conviction.
We lack .jurisdiction to Peview a refusal to depart downward, however, unless it was based on a mistaken belifef that the court lacked authority to so depart. See, e.g., United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 612, (5th Cir.2000). i The record reflects that the .district (hurt was aware Ithat it had the Authority to depart downward; if did not believe-that Rodriguez' case warranted it. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the determination. See id.; United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477-78 (5th Cir.1995).
DISMISSED
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.