IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10286
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY HARRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-136-A
- - - - - - - - - -
October 22, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Harrison appeals the sentence imposed following
entry of his guilty plea to a superseding indictment charging him
with distribution of cocaine base. Harrison contends that the
district court erred in refusing to sentence him under U.S.S.G.
§ 5C1.2. Because application of that section requires a finding
that no weapon was possessed in connection with the offense and
because the district court did not clearly err in determining
that Harrison had possessed a firearm in connection with the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 97-10286
-2-
offense, we hold that the district court properly refused to
sentence Harrison under the safety-valve provision of § 5C1.2.
See United States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997); see also Wright v. United
States, 113 F.3d 133, 135 (8th Cir. 1997).
Harrison also argues that the district court erred in
refusing to depart downward from the guideline imprisonment range
because of Harrison’s youth and family responsibilities. “The
imposition of a lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to
depart from the guidelines provides no ground for relief.”
United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995). This
court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant’s challenge to his
sentence based on mere dissatisfaction with the court’s refusal
to grant a downward departure, unless the court’s refusal was the
result of a violation of law or a misapplication of the
Guidelines. Id. A refusal to depart is a violation of law if
the court mistakenly assumed that it lacked the authority to
depart. United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.
1994). Because there is no indication that the district court
misapprehended its authority to reduce Harrison’s sentence, the
district court’s refusal to grant the motion for downward
departure is not reviewable by this court. The sentence is
AFFIRMED.