United States v. Villanueva-Labastida

16 F. App'x 809
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 23, 2001·No. No. 99-30327; D.C. No. CR-99-06018-FLV·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dionicio Villanueva-Labastida appeals his 63-month sentence imposed following a [810] guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Villanueva-Labastida contends that the district erred by denying his request for a downward departure based on: (1) the alleged sentencing disparities between districts1; (2) unique family circumstances; (3) lesser harms; (4) imperfect necessity; and (5) a combination of the factors cited above. Because the district court expressly acknowledged its discretion to downwardly depart, but declined to do so based on the facts of this ease, we lack jurisdiction to review Villanueva-Labastida’s claims. See United States v. Timbana, 222 F.3d 688, 699 (2000) (‘We have no jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure.”).

DISMISSED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Villanueva-Labastida, 16 F. App'x 809 (9th Cir. 2001).

16 F. App'x 809 (United States v. Villanueva-Labastida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related