UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4774
VICTOR DESHAWN BANKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-40)
Submitted: May 28, 1999
Decided: September 22, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States
Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Jenni-
fer Ann Paisner, Third-Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Victor Deshawn Banks pled guilty to possession of cocaine base
with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994).
He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court mis-
takenly believed itself to be without the authority to depart below the
guideline range on account of an unjustified sentencing disparity. We
dismiss.
Where the district court recognizes that it has the authority to grant
a motion for downward departure, its refusal to do so is not review-
able. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 29-31 (4th Cir. 1990).
Here, although the district court stated that it did not believe that it
had the authority to depart on the basis sought by Banks, it also stated
that even if it had the authority, it would not have departed in Banks'
case. Because the district court made this alternative finding, we are
without jurisdiction to review the district court's refusal to depart. We
have considered Banks' arguments to the contrary, and find them
unavailing. Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2