Opinion ID: 548468
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fifty-seven month sentence

Text: 46 Sanchez's final argument is that his sentence was greater than necessary, even if the calculation of the sentence under the guidelines was correct. The district judge accepted the presentence report's recommendation of a fifty-seven month sentence, in the middle of the guideline range of fifty-one to sixty-three months. At his sentencing hearing, Sanchez's counsel argued that the district court should depart downward, given his general background as a hard-working man who had overcome obstacles of learning disabilities and illiteracy to support a large family. 47 The district judge refused to depart downward. Although he expressed a general regret that the guidelines limited his discretion, he added while the guidelines impose greater sentences than normally I would consider, I don't think they are unreasonable or inappropriate in this respect. 48 We have recently held that a district court's discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines is not subject to review on appeal. United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 103 (9th Cir.1990). The district judge in this case nowhere indicated that his refusal to depart from the guideline range was other than discretionary. If he believed that a specific guideline provision precluded him from departing on the bases urged by Sanchez's counsel, he certainly would not have imposed more than the minimum sentence under the guideline range, which would have been fifty-one months. In sentencing Sanchez to fifty-seven months, the district judge exercised his discretion, and we are without jurisdiction to review his failure to depart downward. 49 AFFIRMED.