Mejia-Munoz

MEMORANDUM *

Marcos Mejia-Munoz appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for downward departure, as well as a term of his supervised release. We would ordinarily dismiss the first issue for lack of jurisdiction. However, in light of United States v. Ameline, 1 we must remand. We dismiss the second issue on ripeness grounds.

Contrary to Mejia-Munoz’s argument, the basis of the district court’s decision to deny his downward departure motion was clear. The court twice stated that it recognized its discretion and that it chose not to exercise that discretion. The court’s statements distinguish this case from United States v. Dickey, 2 on which Mejia-Munoz relies. Accordingly, this panel lacks jurisdiction over this issue and would, ordinarily, dismiss it.

We do not dismiss this issue because, after the district court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory. 4 We cannot determine from the record whether the district court would have imposed a materially different sentence had it known that the Guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. Therefore, under Ameline, we remand for the limited purpose of making that…