of review set forth in Jones does not apply to her case because Jones only addressed upward departures. We disagree. Title 18, section 3742(e) of the United States Code, the statutory subsection that mandates de novo review, does not distinguish between upward and downward departures, stating only that “[w]ith respect to determinations under subsection (3)(A) or (3)(B), the court of appeals shall review de novo the district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(4). Further, subsections (3)(A) and (3)(B) apply to all sentences “outside the applicable guideline range.” 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)(3). This plain reading of the statutory language finds support in the decisions of other circuits. See United States v. Stockton, 349 F.3d 755, 764 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mallon, 345 F.3d 943, 945-7
holding that the relating to parenthetical in 18 usc  1961 was merely to aid identification of 18 usc  2314 rather than to limit its application holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding for the purposes of 18 usc  924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc  924e2b holding that 18 usc  3742e applies to downward departures holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc  924c