United States v. Trejo-Mendoza

Background The defendant pleaded guilty to reentry of a removed alien in violation of Section eighteen United States Code thirteen twenty-six. He had previously served four years in state prison for unrelated offenses including driving under the influence. He moved for a downward departure to credit time served in state prison, arguing a delay in the federal arrest warrant execution prevented concurrent sentencing. The district court denied the motion, ruling that the state offenses were unrelated to the federal charge. The court’s reasoning The panel determined that the district court understood its authority to grant a downward departure but exercised its discretion to deny it. Under Section eighteen United States Code thirty-seven forty-two, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of a downward departure unless the district court believed it lacked legal authority. Since the district court recognized its authority, the appeal on procedural reasonableness grounds is barred. The court also found no substantive unreasonableness given the sentence fell within the advisory guidelines range. We lack subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim that Defendant’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable based upon the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward departure. United States v. Dawson, 90 F.4th 1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2024) What it means going forward This decision reinforces that appellate courts cannot review discretionary sentencing decisions regarding downward departures unless the lower court misinterpreted its legal authority to grant such relief.