Opinion ID: 3011539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction, Issues & Standards of Review

Text: The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. S 3742, and 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We must decide if the district court erred in failing to address Powell's request for a downward departure based on substandard conditions of confinement. We review the district court's decisions concerning departures from the Sentencing Guidelines for abuse of discretion. United States v. Abuhouran, 161 F.3d 206, 209 (3d Cir. 1998). However, when reviewing legal questions regarding the application of the guidelines, we need not defer to the district court's conclusion, and we will review its holding for legal error. Id. Here, however, we do not know why the district court rejected Powell's request for a downward departure. The court merely announced that it would treat Powell's letter as a pro se motion for a departure, but sentenced Powell without departing from the applicable guideline range, and without explicitly ruling on Powell's pro se motion. For the purposes of this appeal, we will assume that the court's sentence to the suggested guideline range constituted an implicit denial of Powell's motion for a downward departure. In United States v. Mummert we explained our jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a motion for departure. We stated: [I]f the ruling was based on the district court's belief that a departure was legally impermissible, we have jurisdiction to determine whether the district court's 6 understanding of the law was correct. By contrast, if the district court's ruling was based on an exercise of discretion, we lack jurisdiction [under United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 271-72 (1989)]. United States v. Mummert, 34 F.3d 201, 205 (3d Cir. 1994). We must also determine if Powell's guilty plea agreement included an understanding as to the supervised release he was exposed to and if so, whether he is entitled to specific performance of that portion of his plea agreement. 3 We review that claim for harmless error. Fed.R.Crim.P.11(h);4 United States v. Electrodyne Systems Corp., 147 F.3d 250, 252 (3d Cir. 1998). Our review of whether the government violated the terms of the plea agreement is plenary as it is a question of law, and there is no factual dispute. United States v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.3d 1357, 1360 (3d Cir. 1989).