Opinion ID: 3062904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Departure for Diminished Capacity

Text: Diaz next maintains that he was entitled to a downward departure for diminished capacity pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, which provides that a court may depart below the applicable guideline range if the defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity which contributed substantially to the commission of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 (2009). According to Diaz, his age, education, employment record, severe motorcycle injuries, and minor role in the offenses rendered his case atypical, such 19 that he was entitled to a downward departure for diminished capacity under Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S. Ct. 2035 (1996).3 We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of a downward departure in this case. Unless the district court incorrectly believed that it lacked the authority to grant a downward departure, we have no jurisdiction to review its decision. See United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, the district court rejected a downward departure because it found that “while [Diaz] had an unfortunate accident, there is no indication that it led to a diminished capacity or that it really played any role in this offense.” R14 at 14. The record thus reflects the district court recognized its authority to make a downward departure but found that the facts did not warrant one. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision. See Dudley, 463 F.3d at 1228.