guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was sentenced, inter alia, to 262 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges only the district court’s determination of his sentence. He argues that the court erred in not departing downward because of the low purity of the drugs involved in his crimes, which he contends is permitted by United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1, comment, (n.9). Mr. Arreola-Najera acknowledges that this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review a sentencing court’s denial of a downward d 159-60 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); and United States v. Upthegrove, 974 F.2d 55,
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 holding that note 9 did not authorize downward departure based on drug purity recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart holding that note 9 does not preclude downward departure where defendant had no control over or knowledge of the highlevel purity of methamphetamine involved holding that district court did not have authority to depart downward under note 9 based on low purity of methamphetamine involved in case