UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                       No. 97-4906
WILLIAM EUGENE ALTMAN, JR., a/k/a
Gene Altman,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-722)

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Decided: February 22, 1999

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael S. Seekings, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Eugene Altman, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of using
the United States mail in furtherance of a scheme to defraud an insur-
ance company in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994). Altman was
subsequently sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Alt-
man contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0 (1997). Finding Altman's claim unre-
viewable, we dismiss his appeal.

In his motion for downward departure, Altman maintained that
attributing to him for sentencing purposes the total loss sustained by
the insurance company as a result of the overall conspiracy, an
amount in excess of one million dollars, would greatly overstate the
seriousness of the offense. See USSG § 2F1.1. The sentencing court
determined that a downward departure was not warranted under the
circumstances, and therefore, denied the motion.

A district court's decision not to depart downward from the sen-
tencing guidelines is not subject to appellate review unless the refusal
to depart is based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked author-
ity to depart. See United States v. Bayerle, 

, 30-31 (4th
Cir. 1990). In the present case, the district court heard Altman's argu-
ments on this issue and determined that a departure was not warranted
under the circumstances. There is nothing in the record suggesting
that the court believed that it lacked the authority to grant Altman's
motion. Thus, we will not review its decision not to depart downward.

Accordingly, we dimiss Altman's appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2