Opinion ID: 678277
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District Court's Understanding of its Power to Depart

Text: 27 Erving's main brief is not subdivided into particular arguments. The argument directed at refusal to depart is contained in nine lines of his brief: [Judge McDade's] erroneous belief that he did not have the authority to order such a [concurrent] sentence was the basis for his decision to impose a consecutive sentence upon Defendant-Appellant. He did not believe that he had the discretion to order a departure from the Policy Statement contained within Section 7B1.3. A claim that a judge erroneously believed that he was without authority to grant such a departure is 'cognizable by way of appeal.' 18 U.S.C. 3742(a)(1-3)[;] U.S. v. Forrest [,] 881 F.2nd 976 (11[th] Cir.1989). Erving Br. at 17. 28 It is true that Judge McDade spoke emphatically of the effect of Sec. 7B1.3 as depriving him of any discretion but to sentence the defendant to consecutive sentences. Tr. at 56. His only reference to departure was contained in language attached to the judgment on revocation: the Court finds no reason to depart from the sentence called for by application of the policy statements. Feb. 3, 1994 J. Order at 3. Nevertheless he had held an evidentiary hearing on Erving's motion for departure. He did not state any view that he would have no power anyway. 29 Notwithstanding some degree of vagueness on the point, we think the record shows a decision by Judge McDade that Sec. 7B1.3 was binding and required a consecutive sentence and that a departure was not warranted.