Opinion ID: 197719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Downward Departure for Agreeing to be Deported

Text: Lastly, Senior argues that the district court's decision not to grant a downward departure for his agreeing to be deported is reviewable because it was not an exercise of discretion but a ruling based on a mistaken understanding of the law. Senior further asserts that, because of its mistaken understanding that it could not depart, the court did not consider the facts or merits of his request. A district court's discretionary decision not to depart below the guideline sentencing range is not reviewable, except where there is a mistake of law. See United States v. Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 619 (1st Cir. 1994). We need not decide whether the district court had the authority to grant the requested downward departure. The district court made it clear that it would not grant a downward departure even if it could. Clearly, this statement belies Senior's contention that the court did not consider the merits of his argument for a downward departure. Moreover, it renders utterly harmless any mistaken view of 4. We look to both the date of reentry and the date of apprehension because the indictment did not charge Senior with unlawful reentry; it only charged him with being found in the United States, without consent from the Attorney General, following arrest and deportation. Because Senior was under a criminal justice sentence on both dates, we need not decide which is applicable. -8- 8 the law harbored by the court. Therefore, even if we had jurisdiction to entertain this argument, we would reject it. Affirmed. Affirmed -9- 9