United States v. Billy Joe Girty ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1071
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Western District of Arkansas.
    Billy Joe Girty,                         *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 7, 2000
    Filed: June 13, 2000
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Billie Joe Girty appeals the District Court’s1 sentence following his guilty plea
    to drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). The District Court
    denied Girty’s motion for downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 4A1.3 (policy statement) (1998), and sentenced him to 77 months
    imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Girty argues the District
    1
    The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Arkansas.
    Court believed it lacked authority to depart and failed to address his downward-
    departure motion.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court was
    well aware of the motion before it, and denied the motion as a discretionary matter,
    with full knowledge of its authority to depart under § 4A1.3. See United States v.
    Correa, 
    167 F.3d 414
    , 417 (8th Cir. 1999) (denial of downward departure was
    unreviewable where district court considered defendant’s arguments, found no
    extraordinary circumstances warranting departure, and did not indicate it lacked
    authority to depart); United States v. Payne, 
    81 F.3d 759
    , 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (denial
    of § 4A1.3 departure was unreviewable where district court heard argument from both
    parties at sentencing regarding departure and overall context of court’s statements
    indicated it was aware of authority but chose not to depart based on merits of
    defendant’s request). Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1071

Filed Date: 6/13/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021