The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONARD CHRISTOPHER BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:08-cr-00424-DCN-1)
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Christopher Brown entered a plea, pursuant to
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to possession of a
firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2006). He received a
sentence of seventy-two months’ imprisonment. Brown appeals his
sentence, contending that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied his request for a downward departure
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (2010) based on
his diminished capacity. For the reasons explained below, we
dismiss the appeal.
The district court has the discretion to depart
downward if “(1) the defendant committed the offense while
suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity; and (2)
the significantly reduced mental capacity contributed
substantially to the commission of the offense.” USSG § 5K2.13.
However, “[w]e lack the authority to review a sentencing court’s
denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to
understand its authority to do so.” United States v. Brewer,
520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008). Our review of the record
discloses that the district court did not fail to recognize its
authority to depart. Thus, Brown’s claim is not reviewable on
appeal.
2
We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3