Magallanes-Martinez

MEMORANDUM ***

Magallanes-Martinez argues the district court’s finding that he was deported following a conviction for an aggravated felony violated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As he candidly admits in his reply, however, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 966 , 121 S.Ct. 1503 , 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001). This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s *422 decision to depart downward. See United States v. Banuelos-Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Nonetheless, “an abuse-of-discretion standard does not mean a mistake of law is beyond appellate correction. A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 116 S.Ct. 2035 , 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (citation omitted). A district court may not depart from an applicable sentencing guideline range “unless the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the…