sentence. As already discussed, the reasonableness of Wilkerson's sentence is not an issue before the court. Furthermore, the district court acted within its discretion when it did not impose a downward departure for familial reasons after giving Carter the opportunity to argue in favor of a downward departure. United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318, 326 (6th Cir.2007) (mentioning that such downward departures are not only discretionary, but also discouraged). Although it is unfortunate that Carter has made choices that will separate her from her children, this reality is not unusual. In fact, it could have been clear error if the district court had issued a downward departure. See United States v. Holmes, 983 F.2d 1069 (table), 1992 WL 393583, at *7 (6th Cir. Dec.31, 1992) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 5. Tether and Complying with the Directives
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 despite the defendants status as the sole supporter of his wife and three children the district court erred when it gave a downward departure for familial obligations because departure downward in sentencing is not justified for family reasons except in unusual circumstances holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable