United States of America v. Gregory Kent Huffer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4083
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY KENT HUFFER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 00-4084
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMEY LOWELL BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-99-128)
Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Clarke VanDervort, Charleston, West Virginia; Mary L. Newberger,
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Philip H.
Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Kent Huffer and Jamey Lowell Bryant each pled guilty
to aiding and abetting an attempted armed bank robbery in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), (d) (West Supp. 2000), 18 U.S.C. § 2
(1994). Huffer was sentenced to a term of fifty-one months im-
prisonment. Bryant received a sentence of thirty-seven months
imprisonment. Huffer and Bryant appeal their sentences, contending
that the district court erred when it failed to depart on the
ground of aberrant conduct. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Ch. 1, Pt. A, 4(d) (1998) (departure permitted for “single acts of
aberrant behavior”). We dismiss the appeals for lack of
jurisdiction.
In sentencing each defendant, the district court specifically
acknowledged its authority to depart for aberrant behavior. The
court nonetheless decided that a departure was not warranted in
either case. In this circumstance, the district court's exercise
of its discretion is not reviewable on appeal. See United States
v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990); see also United States
v. Brock, 108 F.3d 31, 33 (4th Cir. 1997).
We therefore dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argu-
ment 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

-- 3 of 3 --