Opinion ID: 788456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 12 The parties disagree over whether the district court considered the information in the sentencing memorandum or found that it lacked the authority to consider such information. This disagreement raises a question of whether this court has jurisdiction to review Bullard's sentence. In United States v. Gregory, 932 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir.1991), this court considered the question of the extent to which a district court's downward departure may be appealed. In Gregory, the district court sentenced the defendant to 37 months, the lowest end of defendant's guideline range, which represented a five year-downward departure from the statutory minimum range as a result of defendant's substantial assistance. Gregory argued that the district court should have departed further based on her diminished capacity. We held that we lacked jurisdiction to consider the extent of the district court's downward departure, stating this court should not accept jurisdiction over appeals based on factors which the appellant argues should have influenced the degree of a downward departure. Id., citing United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir.1990) ([W]e have no jurisdiction to review the extent of a downward departure merely because the affected defendant is dissatisfied with the quantification of the district court's generosity.). We also made clear, however, that [a]lthough we have no jurisdiction over appeals which argue that the district court failed to properly weigh certain factors in departing downward, a defendant may still appeal a sentence `imposed in violation of the law [or] ... imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.' Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), (2)). 13 Here, Bullard is arguing that the district court should have considered the information in the sentencing memorandum in determining the extent of the downward departure. The district court stated at sentencing: 14 The Court has carefully read and considered the defense sentencing memorandum. And this is a case that falls within those prohibitions within the guidelines, themselves, clearly. If the Court were to attempt to, on a normal basis, address those issues, this Court would be reversed in the shake of a sheep's tail. I recognize that. 15 The district court's statement is ambiguous. The district court's statement could be interpreted to mean that the district court did in fact consider the sentencing memorandum. In that situation, review would be foreclosed under Gregory because the issue would be whether the district court gave the factors set forth in the sentencing memorandum sufficient weight. Alternatively, the district court's statement could be interpreted to mean that the district court did not consider the sentencing memorandum because it believed it lacked the authority to do so. In that situation, review is possible because the issue would be whether Bullard's sentence was imposed as a result of an improper application of the guidelines. Because there is an ambiguity, we will assume that we have jurisdiction to review Bullard's appeal.