Opinion ID: 1188895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Billue's appeal as a challenge to the extent of the downward departure

Text: While Billue frames his appeal as a challenge to the district court's application of the Guidelines, the appeal may also be construed as a challenge to the extent of the downward departure awarded by the district court. ( See Aplt. Br. at 9-10 (arguing that the district court could have awarded Billue an additional departure of 32 months).) Absent an allegation that the district court was motivated by an unconstitutional motive in arriving at its downward departure, we may not review the extent of [such] a downward departure in the defendant's favor. United States v. Dalton, 478 F.3d 879, 881 (8th Cir.2007). Whether, upon motion by the Government, to depart downward from a mandatory minimum, and how much to so depart, is a decision that lies within the district court's discretion and is virtually unreviewable on a defendant's appeal. Id.; see also United States v. Berni, 439 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir.2006) (explaining that the non-reviewability rule survived Booker, 543 U.S. at 220, 125 S.Ct. 738). Here, there is no allegation of unconstitutional motive on the part of the district court. Therefore, inasmuch as Billue's appeal is a challenge to the extent of the downward departure granted by the district court, we may not consider that challenge.