135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (citation omitted). “A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Id. (citation omitted). III. Marin-Castaneda argues that the district court had the authority to depart downward based on his willingness to consent to deportation, his age and the ordeal caused by ingestion of the heroin pellets. We will address each of these factors in turn. A. Initially, we must observe that Marin-Castaneda does not make any claim that his very status as a deportable alien provided a basis for downward departure. Other courts of appeal have expressed conflicting opinions as to whether a district court can depart downward based on an alien’s eligibility for deportation. Compare United States v. Farouil, 124 F.3d 838, 847 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Smith, 27 F.3d 649, 655
recognizing that district court may take into account adverse impact on incarceration caused by status as deportable alien holding that a district court may depart if it finds that status as a deportable alien results in an unusual or exceptional hardship in  conditions of confinement holding that departure based on deportable alien status was prohibited holding that defendants status as a deportable alien could be considered by the district court at sentencing holding that the district court could consider increased sentence severity resulting from deportable alien status