Opinion ID: 160192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Downward Departure Because of Incidental Nature of Money Laundering Offenses

Text: 47 Saffo argues that the district court erred in refusing to grant her a downward departure based on the fact that the money laundering offenses, which resulted in a higher offense level than the other crimes for which she was convicted, were incidental to the distribution of pseudoephedrine. Absent the trial court's clear misunderstanding of its discretion to depart, or its imposition of a sentence which violates the law or incorrectly applies the guidelines, we have no jurisdiction to review a refusal to depart. United States v. Coddington, 118 F.3d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 48 At sentencing, the trial judge stated: I'm troubled by the length of the sentence that is mandated, but I think the Court is constrained, and I don't think -- I am constrained by the law and I just don't feel a downward departure is appropriate in this case. He then went on to discuss the underlying drug and money laundering offenses, the millions of dollars that were laundered, and the fact that the money was used to further the business by buying more pseudoephedrine. He concluded by saying that the sentence is lengthy but that's not within the Court's province to determine what the statute says on sentencing and I'm constrained by that, so I am going to deny the motion for a downward departure. 49 From these statements, we conclude that the judge understood that he had discretion to depart, but determined that departure was not warranted in this instance. The fact that he considered the sentence that was warranted under the guidelines to be lengthy does not demonstrate that he believed he could not depart from that sentence. In fact, his statement that he did not believe downward departure was appropriate here, and his discussion of characteristics of the offenses indicates precisely the opposite. 50 Because the trial court did not misunderstand its discretion to depart on this issue, did not impose a sentence that violates the law, and did not incorrectly apply the guidelines, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart on this issue. 51