In view of this court’s prior decision that Gallatin's conduct warranted a supervisor enhancement, a decision he does not (and cannot) challenge here, Gallatin cannot tenably argue that the district court erred in denying his request to lower his base offense level by two points for being a “minor participant.” Gallatin also does not develop any traction in arguing that his properly calculated criminal-history category “overstated his criminal history” and that he thus should have been given a downward departure. Br. at 2, 24. So long as the district court recognizes its discretion to depart downward (nothing in the record suggests that the court did not recognize this discretion), we may not review its decision. See United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor has
holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that we will not review such a decision unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion holding that the district courts decision to dismiss will be affirmed unless it has abused its discretion