Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Malloy, 95-1609 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1609 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 31, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.___________, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.guidelines sentencing range pursuant to U.S.S.G.to dismiss the appeal.latter finding constitutes a discretionary refusal to depart.court's decision not to depart is unreviewable.States v. Morrison, 46 F.3d 127, 130 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









October 31, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1609

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

MARY GAIL MALLOY,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Tony F. Soltani on brief for appellant. _______________
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Terry L. Ollila, _______________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition,
for appellee.


____________________


____________________











Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Mary Gail Malloy ___________

appeals on the sole ground that the district court erred in

denying her motion for a downward departure from the

guidelines sentencing range pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5H1.4.

The government argues that we lack jurisdiction and urges us

to dismiss the appeal. We agree with the government.

The sentencing transcript suggests that the district

court may have made no final determination whether or not it

had the authority to depart to a reduced prison sentence as

requested by Malloy. However, the court clearly concluded

that whether or not it had such authority, the facts in the

instant case do not warrant a downward departure. This

latter finding constitutes a discretionary refusal to depart.

Since it is sufficient to support the sentence, the district

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

States v. Morrison, 46 F.3d 127, 130 (1st Cir. 1995) (appeal ______ ________

will not lie from a district court's discretionary decision

not to depart); 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.


















Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer