and take them into account when sentencing,” id. at 757, 767, 125 S.Ct. 738, and we continue to review the district court’s application of the guidelines de novo, United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir.2005). Applying these standards, we find no error in the district court’s imposition of the six-level enhancement. C. Sentencing — Overstated Criminal History Andreano next argues his criminal history score was overstated and the district court erred in denying a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. He contends his criminal history is largely comprised of minor offenses making it significantly less serious than most defendants in the same criminal history category, and because the district court misinterpreted United States v. Hutman, 339 F.3d 773 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), it failed to recognize its authority to
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 despite the defendants status as the sole supporter of his wife and three children the district court erred when it gave a downward departure for familial obligations because departure downward in sentencing is not justified for family reasons except in unusual circumstances holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation holding a downward departure  may be appropriate for a relatively young defendant with a brief criminal career holding that a defendants substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure