What are the mitigating factors used by the court to determine a reduction in the sentence of a convicted drug dealer?

Dilts asserts that a variety of mitigating factors were so compelling that the court should have departed downward. In particular, he claims that his unblemished prior record, his lack of drug paraphernalia, his inexperience in the drug trade, his state of depression at the time of the crime, his ties to the community, and his poor health, taken together, mandated a downward departure. To the extent Dilts is claiming the district court abused its discretion in failing to depart downward on the basis of these factors, we have no jurisdiction to review this claim. United States v. Morales, 898 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir.1990). To the extent Dilts is claiming that due process guarantees him a right to individualized sentencing, we reject his claim on the merits. United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337, 338-339 (9th Cir.1990).