Opinion ID: 602236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bobby Jo Whitely

Text: 3 Whitely contends that the district court erred because it failed to make a finding regarding whether he was entitled to a downward adjustment in his sentence for incomplete duress because he was afraid of Kenton Thompson. Sentencing Guideline § 5K2.12 allows the court to depart downward from the applicable guideline range if the defendant committed the offense because of serious coercion, blackmail or duress, under circumstances not amounting to a complete defense. We review the legality of a sentence de novo. United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1992). 4 The Presentence Report (PSR) did not address the issue of whether Whitely's alleged fear of Mr. Thompson constituted such duress. Whitely's counsel then submitted a letter to the court styled as a supplement to the PSR, a motion for an adjustment for [Whitely's] role in the offense ... and a motion for downward departure. Among other things, the letter alleged that Whitely was unable to leave the marijuana growing operation because he feared retaliation from Mr. Thompson. 5 At the sentencing hearing, the court read the letter and Whitely's counsel made an extended plea that the sentence be reduced due to duress. The government countered that the record did not support Whitely's assertions of fear. The Findings of Fact Order did not specifically address the duress claim; the court noted only that it found no reason for departure from the Guidelines. 6 Whitely alleges that the district court failed to follow Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D), which requires the sentencing court either to make a finding as to the accuracy of each challenged assertion in the PSR, or to indicate that the controverted matter will not be taken into consideration in sentencing. Rule 32(c)(3)(D), however, applies only to alleged factual inaccuracies in the PSR. By its own terms, Whitely's letter constituted a motion for downward departure for incomplete duress, rather than a factual objection to the PSR. It is well settled that a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward from the applicable Guideline range is not reviewable. See United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 927 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1991). We are therefore without jurisdiction to review the district court's decision, and the sentence must be AFFIRMED.