context: Given these holdings, granting the defendant's request for review in this case would place us in the inconsistent position of being able to review the methodology and justifications for the degree of a downward departure, while leaving us unable to review a decision not to depart in the first instance. Thus, should we remand a downward departure decision to the trial court, the sentencing judge could easily resolve the methodology problem by providing for no departure at all -- a decision we would be unable to review, and one that would place a defendant such as Hazel in a worse position than that in which he presently finds himself.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 898 F.2d 3, 4
citation_a.parenthetical: "the extent of a departure, like the decision to depart itself, is essentially discretionary, ... and the statute affords no grounds for the beneficiary of a departure decision to complain that the deviation should have been greater"
citation_a.sentence: See Wright, 895 F.2d at 722 (“It would be illogical to insulate from review a harsher sentence that fell within the guidelines while permitting the court of appeals to order further downward departures from a sentence already less than that provided for by the guidelines.”) (citation omitted); cf. also United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir.1990) (“the extent of a departure, like the decision to depart itself, is essentially discretionary, ... and the statute affords no grounds for the beneficiary of a departure decision to complain that the deviation should have been greater”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Thus, the scope of our review over other sentencing decisions indicates that a narrow interpretation of § 3742 is in order.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 895 F.2d 722, 722
citation_b.parenthetical: "It would be illogical to insulate from review a harsher sentence that fell within the guidelines while permitting the court of appeals to order further downward departures from a sentence already less than that provided for by the guidelines."
citation_b.sentence: See Wright, 895 F.2d at 722 (“It would be illogical to insulate from review a harsher sentence that fell within the guidelines while permitting the court of appeals to order further downward departures from a sentence already less than that provided for by the guidelines.”) (citation omitted); cf. also United States v. Pighetti, 898 F.2d 3, 4 (1st Cir.1990) (“the extent of a departure, like the decision to depart itself, is essentially discretionary, ... and the statute affords no grounds for the beneficiary of a departure decision to complain that the deviation should have been greater”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Thus, the scope of our review over other sentencing decisions indicates that a narrow interpretation of § 3742 is in order.