Opinion ID: 784809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District court's refusal to grant Ward's downward departure

Text: 25 Generally, we will not review a district court's refusal to exercise its discretion to grant a downward departure. United States v. Ridge, 329 F.3d 535, 544 (6th Cir.2003). We do have jurisdiction, however, to review a district court's belief that it lacked any authority to depart downward as a matter of law. Id. (quoting United States v. Ebolum, 72 F.3d 35, 37 (6th Cir.1995)). We review de novo whether the district court was aware of its authority to make a downward departure, examining the transcript of the sentencing hearing to make this determination. Id. We presume that the sentencing court has properly exercised its discretion when it decides that a departure is not warranted, as there is no duty on the trial judge to state affirmatively that he knows he possesses the power to make a downward departure, but declines to do so. United States v. Byrd, 53 F.3d 144, 145 (6th Cir. 1995). 26 In its introduction to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission states that it intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out a `heartland,' a set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted. UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL ch. 1, pt. A, subpt. 4(b) (2002). By statute, a district court may sentence outside the prescribed guideline range if there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 5K2.0 (2002). 27 In this case, a de novo review of the transcript from Ward's sentencing hearing reveals that the district court explicitly recognized that it possessed the discretion to depart downward. The government argued that while the court does have the ability to give a downward departure in this case, that the conduct is not outside the heartland. J.A. at 250. After defense counsel's response to the government's argument, Judge Gibbons stated: You know, I don't really have a lot of flexibility in this case. And that doesn't mean I don't recognize my ability to depart downward, because I do. J.A. at 251. After consideration of all of Ward's arguments for downward departure, Judge Gibbons stated: 28 The factors are just not here for a downward departure that take this case out of the norm of cases. A number of the factors that you've mentioned are already covered in the guidelines, a number of others. The facts in this case just don't warrant a downward departure on that basis, even when all the factors are considered together. 29 J.A. at 255. As the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart, Ward lacks a basis to challenge the sentencing court's denial of her motion for a downward departure.