Court Opinion

ID: 2963698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:04.241706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:25.887244
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 31, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1609

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  MARY GAIL MALLOY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Tony F. Soltani on brief for appellant.
            _______________
            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney,  and Terry  L.  Ollila,
            _______________                                 _________________
        Assistant United  States Attorney, on Motion  for Summary Disposition,
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Defendant-appellant  Mary   Gail  Malloy
                 ___________

            appeals on the sole  ground that the district court  erred in

            denying  her  motion  for  a  downward  departure  from   the

            guidelines  sentencing range  pursuant to  U.S.S.G.    5H1.4.

            The government  argues that we lack jurisdiction and urges us

            to dismiss the appeal.  We agree with the government.  

                 The sentencing  transcript  suggests that  the  district

            court  may have made no final determination whether or not it

            had the authority to  depart to a reduced prison  sentence as

            requested by Malloy.   However, the  court clearly  concluded

            that whether or not it  had such authority, the facts  in the

            instant  case  do not  warrant  a downward  departure.   This

            latter finding constitutes a discretionary refusal to depart.

            Since it  is sufficient to support the sentence, the district

            court's decision not to  depart is unreviewable.   See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Morrison, 46 F.3d 127, 130 (1st Cir. 1995) (appeal
            ______     ________

            will not  lie from a district  court's discretionary decision

            not  to depart);  United States v.  Williams, 898  F.2d 1400,
                              _____________     ________

            1403 (9th Cir.  1990) (declining to  review district  court's

            determination  that it had no authority  to depart when court

            indicated it would not depart even if it had  authority to do

            so).   Accordingly,  the appeal  is dismissed.   See  Loc. R.
                                                             ___

            27.1.