Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 110
William C. Carpenter, Jr., U.S. Atty., Edmond Falgowski, Asst. U.S. Atty.,
Wilmington, Del., for U.S.
I.
5
Perakis simply claims the sentencing court abused its discretion by denying his
request for substitute detention.
6
Counsel for Perakis made the request to the sentencing court. The sentencing
court did not expressly deny his request, but it need not. U.S.A. v. Georgiadis,
933 F.2d 1219, 1222 (3d Cir.1991) ("[A] sentencing court does not commit
reversible error under the Sentencing Reform Act by failing to state expressly
on the record that it has considered and exercised discretion when refusing a
defendant's requested downward departure from the guidelines.") It is evident
from the sentencing hearing that the court implicitly refused Perakis' request,
stating, "[Y]ou learned too late.... You have been before the criminal justice
system before. You have had the benefit of probation. You have had the benefit
of coming before a judge and listening to what he had to say. This hasn't helped
you." (App. at 18)
In United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d Cir.1989), an appeal from a
refusal to depart downward from the applicable Guideline sentencing range, we
held that if the district court evaluated mitigating evidence presented at a
sentencing hearing, "... we cannot review the correctness of such determination
unless we first determine that we have jurisdiction to do so." 892 F.2d at 271.
We looked for statutory grounds for appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from
a refusal to depart downward from a Guidelines range and found none. 892
F.2d at 272. We held that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a) does not authorize an appeal
from a district court's discretionary refusal to reduce a sentence below an
applicable Guidelines range, and that appeals on these grounds will be
dismissed.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth, we conclude that we lack appellate
jurisdiction over the appeal and will dismiss.
Honorable John P. Fullam, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation
Perakis' counsel has filed an Anders brief in which he has presented the issues
and arguments but also states his belief that we lack jurisdiction to hear the
appeal because of our decision in United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d
Cir.1989)