Filed: Nov. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-60469 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES MATTHEWS, Defendant- Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CR-160-ALL-P - November 11, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James Matthews (“Matthews”) appeals the sentencing following his guilty plea for filing a false and fraudulent corporate
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-60469 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES MATTHEWS, Defendant- Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CR-160-ALL-P - November 11, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James Matthews (“Matthews”) appeals the sentencing following his guilty plea for filing a false and fraudulent corporate t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60469
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES MATTHEWS,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CR-160-ALL-P
-------------------------------------------------------
November 11, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Matthews (“Matthews”) appeals the sentencing following his guilty plea for filing a
false and fraudulent corporate tax return. Matthews argues that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for a downward departure. We lack jurisdiction to review a
refusal to depart downward, unless the district court’s refusal was based on a mistaken belief that
it lacked the authority to do so. See United States v. Cooper,
274 F.3d 230, 248 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
The record indicates that the district court was aware that it had the authority to award a
downward departure, but it did not believe that Matthews’ case was an extraordinary one
warranting such action. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to review the determination. See
United States v. DiMarco,
46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
-2-