Opinion ID: 154107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction Regarding Downward Departure

Text: 5 Appellant contends that the district court erred in declining to grant his request for downward departure. Our jurisdiction to review such a claim is somewhat limited. We may do so 6 only when the district court refused to depart because it erroneously interpreted the Guidelines as depriving it of the power to depart based on the proffered circumstances.... However, if the district court interpreted the Guidelines as authorizing departure, but nonetheless chose not to depart, then we would have no jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision. 7 United States v. Rowen, 73 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Barrera-Barron, 996 F.2d 244, 245 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937 (1993). 8 In this case, after hearing the arguments of counsel, the district court stated: I adopt the recommendation of the probation department. I find that you are not entitled to any reduction or to any credits. I didn't believe you at the trial and I don't believe you now. We are satisfied that these statements, when read in their proper context, evidence the district court's recognition of its authority to depart downward, and decision not to do so. See Rowen, 73 F.3d at 1063 (sentencing court assumed to recognize its discretion to depart downward unless judge unambiguously states otherwise). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over Mr. Cowan's claim on this issue.