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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.