whereas § 4B1.4 addresses the recidivist harm associated with an armed career offender committing an additional firearm offense, regardless of whether the firearm was possessed in connection with a drug offense. Moreover, we assume that these sections are to be applied cumulatively, because the Guidelines do not state otherwise. See id. at 1310. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying both enhancements. Diminished Capacity As an initial matter, we decline to review the denial of a downward departure under § 5K2.13, because Akel does not allege and the record does not show that the district court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant a downward departure based on reduced mental capacity. See United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1256 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). We review the final sentence imposed by the
holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition