Court Opinion

ID: 9493659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:14:21.248069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:57.230033
License: Public Domain

GRABER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the majority’s opinion except with respect to Part III(C), from which I respectfully dissent. In my view the district court clearly exercised its discretion to refuse to depart downward on the basis of “aberrant behavior.” That being so, we lack jurisdiction to review the court’s decision. United States v. Morales, 972 F.2d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.1992).
The distinct judge was saying, in effect, “I hate these guidelines, especially this *476part, because they are confusing and I want more discretion”—
But, nevertheless, there we are.
Now, I would — I reject the aberrant behavior request for a downward departure. ...
The wording of rejecting a request means that the court entertained the request, but said “no.” In those circumstances we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s challenge.
Nothing about the sentence “I reject the aberrant behavior request for a downward departure” is ambiguous; nothing about it hints that the court thought that it was unable to entertain the request. The court had asked the parties for arguments about whether it should depart downward for “aberrant behavior.” The parties presented arguments pro and con, but both sides clearly assumed that the court could depart downward on that basis if it thought it was justified in doing so.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, nothing in the court’s frustrated musings hints that the court thought that it was without authority to grant the request if it wanted to. Look by contrast at what the court said with respect to the “minor participant” question:
[A]ll we do have from the standpoint of participants are the two defendants, Mr. Adame-Farias and Mr. Rojas-Millan.
I leave for the Circuit to decide whether I do have the power to go two levels downward. It doesn’t appear ... that I do.
In summary, the record plainly reflects that the district court knew that it had discretion but decided to reject Rojas-Mil-lan’s request for a downward departure because of “aberrant behavior.” Accordingly, I dissent from Part III(C).