Opinion ID: 602207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the district court err by failing to depart downward?

Text: 11 We do not have jurisdiction to review a district court's decision not to depart downward unless (1) the district court incorrectly determined there was no legal basis to depart, and (2) the district court indicates it would have otherwise departed. United States v. Belden, 957 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir.1992). 12 In this case the district court did not indicate that it thought that the guidelines prevented it from departing. The court's responses to the downward departure arguments indicate only that it would not consider departing, not that it could not consider departing. The district court's negative comments about the guidelines and its acknowledgment of Sechrest's condition do not convince us otherwise. See id. (district court's statements of sympathy for the defendant did not indicate a belief that departure was foreclosed as a matter of law). 13 We therefore cannot review the district court's decision not to depart. Morales, 898 F.2d at 103. Cf. United States v. Martin, 938 F.2d 162, 163 (9th Cir.1991) (review of decision not to depart proper because the district court's statement,  'I'm not sure that even had I the power to depart downward I would do it,'  was indication that court believed it could not depart.) 14 AFFIRMED.