July 12, 1994         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 94-1043

            


                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  MICHAEL J. DUCOING,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Steven J. Rappaport and Rappaport, Freeman & Pinta  on brief
               ___________________     __________________________
          for appellant.
               Donald  K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Ben   T.
               _________________                                   ________
          Clements,  Assistant   United  States  Attorney,  on   brief  for
          ________
          appellee.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________























                      Per Curiam.  Defendant-appellant Michael J. Ducoing
                      __________

            was  convicted of conspiracy  to commit bank  larceny, see 18
                                                                   ___

            U.S.C.   371, and bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C.   2113(a).  The
                                            ___

            district court  determined that Ducoing is  a career offender

            under   the   Sentencing   Guidelines   and   sentenced   him

            accordingly.  Ducoing challenges  his sentence, claiming that

            the district court erred in denying his motion for a downward

            departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G.   4A1.3, on  the grounds that

            his  criminal  history   category  (VI)  over-represents  the

            seriousness of his criminal  record.  We dismiss for  lack of

            jurisdiction.

                      We have  not addressed whether a downward departure

            pursuant  to    4A1.3  is  permissible in  a  career offender

            case.1   We need not resolve  this issue here.   The district

            judge  did express  "serious doubts"  about his  authority to

            depart downward.  However,  he concluded that even if  he had

            the authority to depart  downward, he should not do  so given

            the  "number  of  offenses  that qualify  here,"  the  "total

            record," and the policies behind the career offender statute,

            28 U.S.C.   994(h).   This latter finding, that the facts  do

            not justify departing, constitutes a discretionary refusal to

                                
            ____________________

            1.  A number of other circuits have held that such departures
            are permitted.  See, e.g., United States v. Beckham, 968 F.2d
                            ___  ____  _____________    _______
            47, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing  cases from the 4th, 8th, 9th
            and 10th circuits).   In United States v. Norflett,  922 F.2d
                                     _____________    ________
            50, 54 n.5 (1st Cir. 1990), we reserved the question whether,
            in view of 28  U.S.C.   994(h), departures are  prohibited in
            career offender cases. 

                                         -2-















            depart.   Since it is sufficient to support the sentence, the

            district court's decision not to depart is unreviewable.  See
                                                                      ___

            United States v. Amparo, 961 F.2d 288, 292 (1st Cir.) (appeal
            _____________    ______

            will not lie from a district court discretionary decision not

            to  depart), cert.  denied,  113 S.  Ct.  224 (1992);  United
                         _____________                             ______

            States  v. Williams,  898  F.2d 1400,  1403  (9th Cir.  1990)
            ______     ________

            (declining to  review district court's determination  that it

            had  no authority to depart when court indicated it would not

            depart even if it had authority to do  so).  Accordingly, the

            appeal is dismissed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.   
                                  ___

































                                         -3-