The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-1449•United States v. Otho Leonard Rater
03-1449Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitApr 30, 2004
1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-2172
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
LeVarges Lenard Brown, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 6, 2004
Filed: April 15, 2004
___________
Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
After LeVarges Brown pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
approximately 108 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A), the district court 1 sentenced him to 262 months imprisonment and 5 years
supervised release. Brown appeals, and we affirm.
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Brown argues that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked authority
to grant Brown’s motion for downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. We have
carefully reviewed the sentencing transcript, and we find no basis to conclude that the
court believed it lacked authority to depart. Rather, the district court made a clearly
discretionary decision not to depart under section 4A1.3 after reviewing Brown’s
criminal history and finding it to be “extensive” and “significant.” The district
court’s decision is, therefore, unreviewable. See United States v. Walterman, 343
F.3d 938, 942 (8th Cir. 2003) (court has no authority to review district court’s
discretionary decision not to downwardly depart, except where district court believed
it lacked power to exercise its discretion).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.