Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-12-2006
USA v. Walker
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3970
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Walker" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 755.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/755
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CLINT WALKER,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cr-00043-3)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 8, 2006
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and NYGAARD,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed July 12, 2006)
____
OPINION OF THE COURT
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Clint Walker appeals his sentence of 57 months imprisonment on the
ground that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by failing to downwardly depart as
to his criminal history category. Because the District Court plainly acknowledged its
ability to depart from the sentencing guidelines and made a discretionary decision not to
do so, its decision is not reviewable by this Court. We therefore conclude that we lack
jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Walker pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine pursuant to a plea
agreement with the United States. The presentence report calculated a guideline range of
92-115 months imprisonment based on an offense level of 23 and a criminal history
category of VI. The District Court accepted the Government’s request for a five level
downward departure from the guidelines to a range of 57-71 months. Walker requested a
further criminal history downward departure, arguing that the Government’s request
exaggerated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. The District Court denied this
request and Walker was sentenced to 57 months in prison.
Walker does not challenge the District Court’s decision to downwardly depart by
five levels. He does argue, however, that the Court misapplied the sentencing guidelines
by not properly taking into account that the sentence should reflect a lower criminal
history category. Walker asserts that most of the criminal history points were assigned
2
based on a period of less than 60 days of criminal conduct over 15 years ago when he was
under the influence of crack cocaine. He notes that if this period were left out of the
calculation, his criminal history would be category II rather than category VI. As a
consequence, Walker requests a review of the sentence by this Court pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2), asserting an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.1
II. DISCUSSION
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary
determination not to further downwardly depart from the sentencing guidelines. See
United States v. Parker, 902 F.2d 221, 222 (3d Cir. 1990)(“The circumstances in which a
defendant may appeal a sentence are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and do not include
situations in which a defendant is seeking an enhanced downward departure.”); United
States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 271-72 (3d Cir. 1989). Nothing in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), altered this principle. United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d
324, 332-333 (3d Cir. 2006).
As long as the District Court understood the advisory nature of the guidelines and
its authority to grant a downward departure, the extent to which it downwardly departed
is not reviewable by this Court unless there is an allegation of a legal error. See United
States v. Cooper, 437 F. 3d at 332-33. The record of the sentencing hearing reflects the
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. As this is
an appeal from a final decision of the District Court, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
3
District Court’s proper consideration and understanding of its authority. Acknowledging
its ability to downwardly depart, the District Court rejected Walker’s claim, also taking
into account the other § 3553(a) factors and the serious nature of the crime. (Appendix to
Appellant’s Brief at 42).
We cannot review the District Court’s discretionary determination that a further
downward departure requested by Walker was not warranted, and we therefore dismiss
the appeal.
4