From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Rodelo-Solis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 23, 2001
17 F. App'x 579 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


17 Fed.Appx. 579 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aurelio RODELO-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 99-50162. D.C. No. CR 98-02621-JNK. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 23, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Defendant was convicted, based on his guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judith N. Keep, J., of importation of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision to grant only a two-level downward departure under the federal Sentencing Guidelines for extraordinary physical impairment.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Judith N. Keep, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Aurelio Rodelo-Solis appeals his fifty-seven month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for one count of importation of cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960 and 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We lack jurisdiction and dismiss.

Rodelo-Solis contends that the district court unreasonably granted only a two-level downward departure for extraordinary physical impairment, instead of the ten levels he requested. We lack jurisdiction to review the extent of a discretionary downward departure. United States v. Riggins, 40 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Vizcarra-Angulo, 904 F.2d 22, 23 (9th Cir.1990). Rodelis-Solis' out-of-circuit authority is not to the contrary. See United States v. Ghannam, 899 F.2d 327, 328-29 (4th Cir.1990) (stating that the district court's decision not to

Page 580.

depart downward as much as the defendant requested is not appealable).

DISMISSED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Rodelo-Solis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 23, 2001
17 F. App'x 579 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

U.S. v. Rodelo-Solis

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aurelio RODELO-SOLIS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 23, 2001

Citations

17 F. App'x 579 (9th Cir. 2001)