United States v. Hoffman , 417 F. App'x 352 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY T. HOFFMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Perry D. McDaniel, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney T. Hoffman pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of storage of hazardous waste without a
permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) (2006). On
appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his request
for a downward departure under Application Notes 7 and 8 to the
Commentary for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Q1.2 (2009).
We dismiss the appeal.
This court does not have jurisdiction to review the
denial of a downward departure so long as the district court
recognized the authority to depart. See United States v.
Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). “Because the
district court’s refusal to depart downward followed its
conclusion that the evidence did not support a departure, its
ruling on this issue is not reviewable on appeal.” United
States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir. 2004).
Because we conclude that the district court recognized
the authority to depart and found that the evidence did not
support a departure, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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