919 F.2d 146
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Mark Christian JENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 1990.*
Decided Nov. 20, 1990.
Before FLETCHER, WIGGINS and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Mark Christian Jensen appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, on one count of uttering a counterfeit United States security in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 472. Jensen argues that the district court erred by sentencing him to 14 months of imprisonment, the maximum term within the range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Jensen does not challenge the correctness of the Guidelines range upon which the district court relied. Instead, he contends that he should have received a lesser sentence in return for his cooperation with the government.
In most instances, we lack jurisdiction to review decisions by a district court refusing either to impose a more lenient sentence within the range prescribed by the Guidelines, or to depart downward from the recommended range. United States v. Pelayo-Bautista, 907 F.2d 99, 102 (9th Cir.1990) (refusal to impose more lenient sentence within range); United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 103 (9th Cir.1990) (refusal to depart downward). We see nothing here that would allow an exception to these rules.1 We therefore lack jurisdiction over Jensen's appeal of his conviction.2 Accordingly, this appeal is
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Because the range within which Jensen's sentence falls is less than twenty-four months, the district court was not required to provide reasons for its choice of sentence. See United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.1990)
Jensen also challenges the denial of a motion to reduce sentence in which he raises issues that are governed by the decision in United States v. Ayarza, 874 F.2d 647, 652-53 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 847 (1990). Jensen filed this motion in the district court after he filed the notice of appeal from his conviction. Even assuming that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Jensen's subsequent motion, we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider it because Jensen has not filed a separate notice of appeal from this final decision. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(a); Baker v. Limber, 647 F.2d 912, 919 (9th Cir.1981) ("filing of the notice of appeal invokes the jurisdiction of an appellate court, and ... establishes the issues to be addressed"); see also 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 588 (1982) (denial of motion appealable as final decision)