that’s the rule under the Guidelines and I believe that’s the rule in the Eleventh Circuit. I believe those are not factors that the court should take into — that that’s a factor that the court should take into consideration in attempting to depart. Frankly, I think if the court tried to depart, it would be reversible error. Id. at 29. Ordinarily, we will not review a district court’s denial of a request for downward departure. United States v. Hadaway, 998 F.2d 917, 919 (11th Cir.1993). However, a district court’s refusal to depart is reviewable on appeal if the court’s decision was based on the belief that it lacked the authority to consider a departure. United States v. Williams, 948 F.2d 706, 708 (11th Cir.1991). See also United States v. Fossett, 881 F.2d 976, 979 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s determination that it
holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding that district court must provide reasonable notice of intent to upwardly depart from guideline range holding that a defendants assertion that the district court did not believe it had the statutory authority to depart from sentencing guideline range  presents a cognizable claim on appeal holding that a court may depart downward from the applicable guideline range under section 4a13 holding that conduct contained in dismissed counts may be considered by a district court in determining whether to depart from the applicable guideline range