assumption to be "unsupported speculation about a defendant's background.” Id. at 281. In United States v. Warren, reliance on a PSR statement which was "by its own terms ... unclear ... whether [the defendant] was the perpetrator or the victim of the frauds recited” was also considered improper speculation. 186 F.3d 358 (3rd Cir. 1999). Neither case is comparable to Soloman’s situation. There was no unsupported speculation about whether Soloman committed any of the crimes at issue; he had been convicted of and sentenced on all the crimes discussed. 4 . To the extent that Soloman seeks review of the denial of the downward departure, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review such a denial that was based on an exercise of discretion. See U.S. v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 247-48 (3d Cir.2000)
holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation 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 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 the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable