reentry which was an accurate rendition of the law as it existed on the date of Appellant’s deportation. See Heckler v. Community Health Services, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 2223-24, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984); K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 912 (1st Cir.1989) (defining elements of equitable estoppel to include a material misrepresentation of a party who had reason to know of its falsity and reasonable reliance upon the misrepresentation to the charging party’s disadvan tage). Further, this Court has recently held that even where the I.N.S. erroneously informed a deportee of the penalty faced upon reentry, such an error is not a mitigating factor justifying a downward departure under the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S. v. Smith, 14 F.3d 662 (1st Cir.1944) (<HOLDING>). Hence, Appellant’s arguments regarding the
recognizing that postoffense rehabilitative efforts while normally not grounds for departure may support departure in extraordinary circumstances and noting that the totality of the circumstances may justify a departure where a single circumstance is not alone sufficient holding that military service although exemplary 25 years prior to offense did not justify downward departure holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal holding that even where defendant was misinformed as to the consequences of unlawful reentry and stated that he returned in reliance on the misrepresentation such a circumstance did not justify a downward departure where defendant made a purposeful decision to engage in felonious conduct holding that a defendants substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure