that we see ... spent their life in the United States.” (Tr. 3.) These subsequent statements suggest that the district court did not find that Flores-Venegas presented a sufficiently extraordinary case to justify a downward departure. The court’s references to the need for legislative action, rather than judicial action, reasonably could be interpreted as referring to the Commission’s decision not to provide a departure for defendants who illegally reenter the country because they have lived most of their lives in the United States. The Commission’s failure to recognize departure on this ground does not, however, prevent the district court from departing on such a ground under unusual circumstances. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 109, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court’s statements are, at a
holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails recognizing that as long as ground has not been prohibited by guidelines departure is permissible if case is outside heartland of cases governed by particular guideline holding that although premeditation is outside the heartland of seconddegree murder guideline upward departure from seconddegree murder guideline based on premeditation was improper because commission considered the defendants state of mind in assigning a higher base offense level to firstdegree murder than to seconddegree murder holding that only factors specifically prohibited by the sentencing guidelines cannot form the basis for a downward departure