Opinion ID: 601273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The district court's refusal to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines.

Text: 15 A district court's decision not to depart downward from an applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is generally not reviewable unless based on an incorrect application of the Guidelines, or an erroneous conclusion of law. Where the district court's decision not to depart downward is based on its exercise of judicial discretion, that decision is not subject to appellate review. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); see United States v. Helton, 975 F.2d 430, 434 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Poff, 926 F.2d 588, 590-91 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 96 (1991); United States v. Franz, 886 F.2d 973, 978 (7th Cir.1989). 16 Hayes challenges the merits of the district court's decision not to depart from the Guidelines, and offers no evidence to suggest that the district court erroneously believed it lacked the authority to depart downward. See Helton, 975 F.2d at 434; cf. Poff, 926 F.2d at 590-91 (judge erroneously concluded he had no authority to depart). The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that Hayes' counsel argued to the court that it had the legal authority to depart downward if it determined that Hayes' criminal history score over-represented the true seriousness of Hayes' past crimes. Furthermore, the sentencing report indicated to the court that it had the authority to depart upward from the Guidelines if it drew the opposite conclusion. Before imposing the sentence, the court questioned Hayes in some detail concerning the circumstances of his life and of his past crimes. The record thus indicates that the court was aware of its legal authority to depart from the Guidelines, and made a discretionary decision not to do so. 17 Furthermore, Hayes' argument that the district court committed reversible error because it did not explicitly address the merits of Hayes' request for a downward departure seems to miss the mark. The record need only provide sufficient information for this court to be satisfied that the district court's decision is not based on an erroneous interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. See Williams v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1118-19 (1992). Since we do not review the merits of the district court's decision not to depart from the Guidelines, Helton, 975 F.2d at 434, explicit findings justifying this decision would appear to be superfluous.