United States v. Rodriguez-Canales

89 F. App'x 477

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Arturo Ridriguez-Canales (“Rodriguez”) appeals his sentence, imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry. He claims the district court mistakenly believed it did not have authority to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines based on the double counting of his previous conviction.

We lack .jurisdiction to Peview a refusal to depart downward, however, unless it was based on a mistaken belifef that the court lacked authority to so depart. See, e.g., United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 612, (5th Cir.2000). i The record reflects that the .district (hurt was aware Ithat it had the Authority to depart downward; if did not believe-that Rodriguez’ case warranted it. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the determination. See id.; United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477-78 (5th Cir.1995).

DISMISSED

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.