the district court did not specifically address its a felt there was no “basis” for a downward departure and that a departure was “not warranted” does not indicate that the court believed it lacked authority to depart downward for ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Robinson, 958 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that the district court was exercising its discretion in refusing to depart downward where the court “entertained briefs and oral arguments on the appropriateness of a downward departure, and concluded that under the circumstances a downward sentencing departure was ‘not warranted’ ”) abrogation on other grounds recognized in United States v. Newman, 203 F.3d 700, 701 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Koenig, 952 F.2d 267, 274 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Neither does the court’s sympathy for the
holding that the district courts decision not to depart downward was discretionary and not reviewable where the court considered the proffered reasons for departure but found them lacking holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis