F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
March 14, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 06-1090
(D. Colorado)
FR AN CISC O JA V IER PA STR ANA- (D.Ct. No. 05-CR-257-REB)
ESCALA NTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
OR D ER DISM ISSING APPEAL
Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Francisco Pastrana-Escalante (Pastrana-Escalante), a citizen of M exico,
appeals from a guideline sentence. He claims the district court abused its
discretion by failing to grant a downward departure based on cultural assimilation
and other mitigating factors. As a result, Pastrana-Escalante contends he received
a disproportional sentence compared to similarly situated defendants.
Additionally, Pastrana-Escalante claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to
present all mitigating circumstances and properly arguing for a lower sentence.
Because the district court unambiguously stated it had discretion to grant the
requested downward departure but declined to do so, we lack jurisdiction over
that claim and dismiss it. Furthermore, we decline to address Pastrana-
Escalante’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
I. Background
On August 5, 2005, Pastrana-Escalante pled guilty to illegal reentry after
deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction (conspiracy to deliver
marijuana) in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Pastrana-Escalante’s
presentence report (PSR ), prepared using the 2004 edition of the United States
Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines M anual, determined his total offense level
was 21 and his criminal history category was III, resulting in a guideline range of
46-57 months. Prior to sentencing, Pastrana-Escalante filed a M otion for
Downward Departure asking the district court to sentence him below the guideline
range because he waived his right to a deportation proceeding. Attached to his
motion was his Sentencing Statement which asked the district court to sentence
him to 18 months imprisonment based on the sentencing factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). 1
1
The motion and sentencing statement were later amended without substantive
changes.
-2-
At sentencing, Pastrana-Escalante presented letters from his family and
friends, offered mitigating evidence based on his cultural assimilation within the
United States and testified, along with his sister and father, on his own behalf.
After hearing the government’s objections to Pastrana-Escalante’s motion for
downward departure, the district court concluded Pastrana-Escalante should be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment within the advisory guideline range and
sentenced him to 46 months. In doing so, the district court acknowledged its
jurisdiction to depart downward but declined to do so. Furthermore, the district
court noted it consulted the guidelines for advisory purposes only and considered
the sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
II. Discussion
Pastrana-Escalante argues the district court was unaware that cultural
assimilation is a mitigating factor a court can take into consideration in deciding
whether to depart downward. He claims the court’s misunderstanding and
resulting failure to grant a downward departure caused him to receive an unfair
sentence outside of the range of sentences for similarly situated defendants.
W e lack jurisdiction “to review a district court’s discretionary decision to
deny a motion for downward departure on the ground that a defendant’s
circumstances do not warrant the departure.” United States v. Sierra-Castillo,
405 F.3d 932, 936 (10th Cir. 2005). W e review a denial of a downward departure
only if the denial is based on the sentencing court’s interpretation of the
-3-
guidelines as depriving it of the legal authority to grant the departure. United
States v. Fortier, 180 F.3d 1217, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999). “A district court is
presumed to understand that it has discretion to downwardly depart unless the
court unambiguously states that it lacks such discretion.” Sierra-Castillo, 405
F.3d at 936. Here, the district court clearly and unambiguously stated it could
depart downward, but declined to do so. 2 Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to
review the district court’s decision to deny Pastrana-Escalante’s motion for
downward departure. Id.
W hile we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal
to depart downward, we have jurisdiction to review any sentence for
reasonableness. United States v. Chavez-Diaz, 444 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir.
2006). H ow ever, Pastrana-Escalante’s brief did not raise this issue on appeal. H e
challenges only the denial of a downward departure rather than challenging the
reasonableness of his sentence. United States v. Fonseca, 473 F.3d 1109, 1112
n.3 (10th Cir. 2007).
W e decline to consider Pastrana-Escalante’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. Pastrana-Escalante may pursue an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United
States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“[Ineffective
2
The district court stated: “I acknowledge for the record that I have jurisdiction
to depart downward. I decline to exercise that jurisdiction.” (R. Appellant App. at 33).
-4-
assistance] claims brought on direct appeal are presumptively dismissible, and
virtually all w ill be dismissed.”).
W e DISM ISS Pastrana-Escalante’s appeal.
Entered by the C ourt:
Terrence L. O ’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-5-