Opinion ID: 759769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure Of The District Court To Grant A Downward

Text: Departure In Sentence 60 In his final two issues on appeal, Abdullah challenges sentencing determinations made by the district court. First, he contends that the district judge erred in failing to grant him a downward departure in his sentence due to his minimal participation, his lack of a prior record, the absence of violence in the charged conduct and the need to care for his child and wife. As we have previously held, however, if the district court was not unaware of its discretion to depart from the guideline range, and the sentence was not imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, the failure to depart is not cognizable on appeal. United States v. Hamilton, 949 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted). 61 During the sentencing hearing in this case, the district judge clearly expressed recognition of his discretion to depart from the guideline range in imposing punishment upon Abdullah and entertained argument on the efficacy of such a departure. In the end, however, he explicitly chose not to do so and stated, But I do not feel that I can depart from the Guidelines. I think it's a serious offense. I think he is clearly guilty. I think the jury's verdict was well justified. I think he was clearly involved in the importation and distribution of these cigarettes. In such a situation, because the sentence was imposed in accordance with applicable law and with the guidelines, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this allegation of error on appeal.