919 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1990)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Sandra Jean LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-30095.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
December 3, 1990
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Dec. 6, 1990.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; James M. Burns, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
D.Or.
AFFIRMED.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and EUGENE A. WRIGHT and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Little appeals her sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. We affirm the district court's judgment of sentence.
She first contends that the district court erred in enhancing her sentence for possession of a firearm. As the district court found on remand that she did not possess a firearm and resentenced her accordingly, this issue is moot.
Little next contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 in failing to rule upon her request for a downward departure based on diminished capacity. This court has held that Rule 32 is not violated when the sentencing judge indicates clearly that he has found the controverted statement in the presentence report to be accurate. United States v. Corley, 909 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir.1990). Although the court did not discuss Little's contentions in detail, it is clear from the record that they were considered and rejected. No more is required by Corley.
Little's final argument is that the court abused its discretion by refusing to depart downward from the guidelines. This is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Morales, which held that a district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward is not reviewable on appeal. 898 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.