United States v. Delgado , 36 F. App'x 490 ( 2002 )

Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-11-2002
USA v. Delgado
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-3270
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Delgado" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 347.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/347
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3270
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
GERMAN DELGADO
Appellant
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00410)
District Judge: The Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 7, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, BARRY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 11, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, German Delgado, challenges the extent of the downward
departure granted by the District Court in determining his sentence. The District Court
concluded that Delgado was entitled to a downward departure based upon his substantial
assistance. Nonetheless, the court decided that a three-month departure was all that was
indicated because appellant had an extensive history as a drug dealer and because there
was a substantial quantity of the drugs involved in this offense. In effect, appellant is
arguing that the District Court should have departed a total of fifteen months below his
applicable Guideline range instead of three months.
We do not have appellate jurisdiction to review a challenge to the District
Court’s discretionary decision, challenging the extent of a downward departure under
U.S.S.G. 5K1.1. See United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
United States v. Parker, 902 F.2d 221, 222 (3d Cir.1990)). Thus, we will dismiss this
appeal.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge