of this appeal is presumed. Otalvora argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant him a downward departure below the statutory minimum sentence. “[A] district court may impose a sentence of imprisonment below a statutory minimum for a drug crime if: (1) the government makes a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) asserting the defendant’s substantial assistance to the government; or (2) the defendant meets the ‘safety valve’ criteria set forth, in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).” United States v. Medley, 313 F.3d 745, 749 (2d Cir.2002). Since the Government filed no such motion and since Otalvora concedes that his criminal history precludes his eligibility for the “safety valve,” Otalvora’s downward departure motions were invalid as a matter of law. See id. at 750 (<HOLDING>). Otalvora’s appeal of the district court's
holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that a district court lacks authority to pierce a statutory minimum sentence under ussg  5k11 holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum holding that where the statutory mandatory minimum sentence is higher than the upper end of the guideline range the court departs from the statutory level ie the lowest offense level that could support the statutory minimum holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies