Opinion ID: 767081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Downward Departure for Aberrant Behavior

Text: 55 Daas contends that the district court improperly failed to exercise its discretion to depart downward on the ground that Daas's conduct reflected aberrant behavior. This contention lacks merit.
56 This court may not review a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1343-44 (9th Cir.) (district court need not explicitly comment on its authority to depart), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 225 (1998).
57 A district court may depart downward for a defendant's aberrant behavior if it finds the facts warrant such a departure. See United States v. Colace, 126 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1997). 58 Here, the district court assessed the relevant facts and compared them to the facts in Colace, ultimately concluding that, as in Colace, no departure was warranted. Thus the court recognized it had the discretion to grant a departure. 59 Although it made some comments suggesting it believed it lacked authority to depart downward, the district court ultimately recognized and exercised its discretion not to depart. On several occasions, the district court judge expressed his view that Daas's conduct did not warrant a departure. Although the district court judge remarked at one point that he lacked the authority to depart downward, 17 he later implicitly recognized that he did have this authority and that the facts did not justify its exercise. 18