United States v. Shabazz
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On July 16, 2001, Troy Robinson pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Robinson was placed in a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines.1 Robinson moved for a downward departure based on a family hardship pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 (Family Ties and Responsibilities, and Community Ties).2 The District Court denied Robinson’s motion and sentenced him to 51 months in prison, a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment. We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
On appeal, Robinson contends that the District Court did not consider his family hardship when imposing sentence. He suggests we exercise plenary review.
We disagree. If a district court imposes a sentence in violation of law, or misapplies the Sentencing Guidelines, we exercise plenary review. See United States v. Spiro-poulos, 976 F.2d 155, 160 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1992). But if a district court acknowledges its authority to depart and decides not to do so, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. McQuilkin, 97 F.3d 723, 729 (3d Cir.1996); United States v. Denar-di, 892 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir.1989). In this case, the District Court expressly acknowledged it had the power to depart from the Guidelines, but determined Robinson’s family hardship did not warrant departure.3 Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this matter under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 4 Denardi, 892 F.2d at 271-72.
II.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
40 F. App'x 727 (United States v. Shabazz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.