United States v. John Purifoy ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10282      Document: 00515241875         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/18/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10282                    December 18, 2019
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JOHN PURIFOY,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:18-CR-277-1
    Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Defendant-Appellant John Purifoy pleaded guilty to possession with
    intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
    and (b)(1)(C). At sentencing, the district court declined a requested downward
    departure and sentenced Purifoy to the guidelines sentence of 240 months of
    imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Purifoy timely appealed.
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-10282    Document: 00515241875     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/18/2019
    No. 19-10282
    We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure unless
    the denial was based on the district court’s mistaken belief that it lacked the
    authority to depart. United States v. Lucas, 
    516 F.3d 316
    , 350-51 (5th Cir.
    2008); United States v. Alaniz, 
    726 F.3d 586
    , 627 (5th Cir. 2013).
    The record does not indicate that the district court mistakenly believed
    that it could not grant the motion for a downward departure for lack of
    authority to depart from the Guidelines. Neither does Purifoy allege that the
    district court was unaware of such authority. Rather, the record reflects that
    the district court knew of its authority to grant the motion but concluded that
    the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant a downward departure.
    As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of
    Purifoy’s request for a downward departure. See 
    Lucas, 516 F.3d at 350
    .
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10282

Filed Date: 12/18/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/18/2019