the sixteen-level enhancement], and (A) the defendant has previously been convicted of only one felony offense; (B) such offense was not a crime of violence or firearms offense; and (C) the term of imprisonment imposed for such offense did not exceed one year, a downward departure may be warranted based on the seriousness of the aggravated felony. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2 commentary at n. 5 (1999) (emphasis added). Marquez was ineligible for a downward departure under Application Note 5 because he was sentenced to a term of three years’ imprisonment for his un derlying aggravated felony. Under the law of this circuit, the fact that Marquez’s three-year sentence was suspended is irrelevant. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 170 F.3d 1038, 1039-40 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We do not consider here the merits of
holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final holding that the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to review fines under the criminal sentencing reform act of 1982 because sentence is a broad term which encompasses a fine probation a term of imprisonment or any other form of punishment imposed by the court holding that if the record does not reflect that the sentence was pronounced in the defendants presence there is no sentence and the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable holding that the term of imprisonment for purposes of application note 5 is the sentence imposed by the state court and that it shall not be decreased to reflect a suspension of any part of the sentence