to apply departure framework); United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 205 (3d Cir.2006) (concluding that any error in district court’s disposition of departure motion "is properly deemed harmless”). 3 . Cf. United States v. Mummert, 34 F.3d 201, 205-06 (3d Cir.1994) ("[W]here the record does not make clear whether the district court’s denial of departure was based on legal or discretionary grounds, ... the appropriate course of action is to vacate the sentence and remand for the district court to clarify the basis for its ruling.”) (citing Georgiadis, 933 F.2d at 1222-23). 4 . See United States v. Sally, 116 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir.1997) (”[P]ost-offense rehabilitation efforts, including those which occur post-conviction, may constitute a sufficient fa ee Cooper, 437 F.3d at 327-28
holding that we lack jurisdiction over unexhausted equal protection claims holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding that we have jurisdiction to review the award or denial of attorney fees under  1447c holding that we have jurisdiction to entertain such claims