v. Booker, 543 U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), in which the Court determined that it must “excise” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) to the extent that the section “require[d] sentencing courts to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range (in the absence of circumstances that justify a departure).” Id. at-, 125 S.Ct. at 764. This court has reiterated Booker’s, pronouncement that sentencing courts must consider the Sentencing Guidelines including “even though they are no longer bound by — what the guidelines say about departing from the guidelines sentencing range.” United States v. Forrest, 402 F.3d 678, 689-90 (6th Cir.2005). We find no error in the district court’s disposition of the departure issue. See United States v. Prince, 214 F.3d 740, 766 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). This court has adopted a flexible approach in
holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure 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 district court may not depart downward to preserve defendants ability to make restitution 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 the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward