Opinion ID: 604567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Consider Addiction and Childhood Mistreatment

Text: 10 Eirven contends the district court should have departed downward from the applicable guideline range in light of Eirven's untreated drug addiction and his childhood mistreatment. Appellant's Brief at 28. But a district court's decision not to depart downward is not reviewable. E.g., United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 102-03 (9th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F.2d 489, 490 (9th Cir.1991) (district court has no obligation to specifically address whether it had discretion to depart); cf. United States v. Roe, 976 F.2d 1216, 1218 n. 1 (9th Cir.1992) (though district court's conclusion that it couldn't exercise its discretion to depart is reviewable, the district court's discretionary decision not to depart isn't reviewable). United States v. Floyd, 945 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir.1991), amended, 956 F.2d 203 (9th Cir.1992), which the defendant relies on, says merely that the district court may consider lack of youthful guidance in departing downward; Floyd didn't say the court must consider it. 11 Eirven also argues the district court should have considered Eirven's addiction and unfortunate childhood in sentencing within the appropriate guideline range. Appellant's Brief at 28. But a district court's discretionary decision on a sentence within the applicable range is also unreviewable. United States v. Pelayo-Bautista, 907 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir.1990).