United States v. Stephen Lee Ellis

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Stephen Lee Ellis

76 F.3d 389, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7370, 1996 WL 31987

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1996

Docket95-50239

StatusUnpublished

This text of 76 F.3d 389 (United States v. Stephen Lee Ellis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Stephen Lee Ellis, 76 F.3d 389, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7370, 1996 WL 31987 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

76 F.3d 389

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stephen Lee ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-50239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.*
Decided Jan. 26, 1996.

Before: ALARCON, HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Stephen Lee Ellis appeals his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines imposed following his guilty plea conviction for four counts of bank robbery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart downward only if the court concluded that it did not have the discretion to depart. United States v. Cantu, 12 F.3d 1506, 1510 (9th Cir.1993). Aberrant behavior is a permissible basis for departure. United States v. Takai, 941 F.2d 738, 743 (9th Cir.1991).

Ellis contends that the district court failed to exercise its discretion to depart based on aberrant behavior because it erroneously considered his drug addiction. See, e.g., United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir.1994). We disagree. It is apparent from the record that the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart on the permissible grounds offered by Ellis, and declined to do so. Absent some indication that the district court believed it lacked authority to depart, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward. See United States v. Heim, 15 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 55 (1994).

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

76 F.3d 389

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stephen Lee ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-50239.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.*
Decided Jan. 26, 1996.

Before: ALARCON, HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Stephen Lee Ellis appeals his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines imposed following his guilty plea conviction for four counts of bank robbery. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart downward only if the court concluded that it did not have the discretion to depart. United States v. Cantu, 12 F.3d 1506, 1510 (9th Cir.1993). Aberrant behavior is a permissible basis for departure. United States v. Takai, 941 F.2d 738, 743 (9th Cir.1991).

Ellis contends that the district court failed to exercise its discretion to depart based on aberrant behavior because it erroneously considered his drug addiction. See, e.g., United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir.1994). We disagree. It is apparent from the record that the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart on the permissible grounds offered by Ellis, and declined to do so. Absent some indication that the district court believed it lacked authority to depart, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward. See United States v. Heim, 15 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 55 (1994).

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 F.3d 389, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 7370, 1996 WL 31987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stephen-lee-ellis-ca9-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack