UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                        No. 99-4658

MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-17)

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Decided: June 6, 2000

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney,
Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Williams pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West Supp.
2000). He now appeals his 151-month sentence. We dismiss the
appeal.

Williams' sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred
when it denied his motion for downward departure. Williams con-
tends that the presentence report over-represented his criminal his-
tory, which consisted of a number of relatively minor offenses
committed at a young age. A district court's decision not to depart
from the sentencing guidelines is not subject to appellate review
unless the refusal to depart is based on the mistaken belief that the
court lacked the authority to depart. See United States v. Bayerle, 898
F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). The sentencing transcript reflects that
the district court clearly recognized that it could depart, but declined
to do so for a number of reasons. Therefore, under Bayerle, we dis-
miss Williams' appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2
00000<ss2,BF> 00000<ss3,RO> 00000<ss4,BF> 00000<ss5,RO> 00000<ss6,RO> 00000<ss7,IT> 00000<ss8,RO> 00000<ss9,RO>
01980<ss10,BF> 00000<ss11,RO> 00000<ss12,RO> 00000<ss13,BF> 00000
