Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-29-2002
USA v. Brown
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket 1-1924
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Brown" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 54.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/54
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-1924
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
STEVEN BROWN,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 95-92-03)
District Court Judge: Clarence C. Newcomer
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District
Judge.
(Opinion Filed: January 29, 2002)
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Because we write for the benefit of the parties, the background
of the appeal
is not set out.
We reject defendant's argument that he was entitled to a
downward
departure. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), a district
court "may reduce
a sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent substantial assistance in
investigating or
prosecuting another person, in accordance with the guideline and policy
statements issued
by the Sentencing Commissions under 28 U.S.C. 994." The record is clear
that the
District Court gave due consideration to the assistance provided by the
defendant,
determined that he did not provide substantial assistance as required by
Rule 35(b), and
exercised its discretion to sentence the defendant within the appropriate
range provided
by the Sentencing Guidelines.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court's
discretionary
refusal to depart downward. See, e.g., United States v. McBroom, 124 F.3d
533, 541 n. 9
(3d Cir. 1997); United States v. Mummert, 34 F.3d 201, 205 (3d Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
appellate jurisdiction is lacking, and we dismiss defendant's appeal.