Cir.2001); United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65, 70-71 (2d Cir.1999). 4 . In light of the considerations discussed in the following paragraph, we need not decide whether these possibilities would, in other circumstances, create sufficient doubt to justify a remand for resentencing. Cf. United States v. Morales-Castillo, 314 F.3d 561, 564 (11th Cir.2002) (rejecting the defendant's contention that the district court failed to recognize that it had discretion under Application Note 6 "because there is no evidence in the record that the district court believed it was required to impose a consecutive sentence,” and instead concluding that the court "chose to impose” a consecutive sentence because of the defendant's criminal history); United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d 434, 439 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant
recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that when we do not know why the district court refused to depart  we assume that the district court knew and applied the law correctly rather than that it erroneously thought itself without discretion internal quotations and alterations omitted recognizing that we review a trial courts jury instruc tions for abuse of discretion and that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law internal quotation marks omitted holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward 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