Opinion ID: 169791
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extent of D ownward Departure

Text: Pina-Rodriguez’s complaint about the degree to w hich the district court departed must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. “This court has no jurisdiction . . . to review a district court’s discretionary decision to deny a motion for downward departure on the ground that a defendant’s circumstances do not warrant the departure.” United States v. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d 932, 936 (10th Cir. 2005). And that did not change after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Fonseca, 473 F.3d 1109, 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). (“Even after Booker, this court has no jurisdiction to review a district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for downward departure on the ground that a defendant's circumstances do not warrant the departure.”). Here, the district court clearly understood its discretionary authority to depart to whatever extent it determined appropriate under the guidelines, yet declined to depart further, as Pina-Rodriguez urged. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction and decline to consider the argument. -3-