SUMMARY ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal hereby is DISMISSED.

William Chue pleaded guilty to one count of participation in a racketeering enterprise and one count of use of a firearm in relation to racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 924(c).1 The first count yielded a sentence of 360 months’ to life imprisonment, and the second count carried a mandatory sen-fence of 60 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively. Pursuant to the Government’s motion to downwardly depart pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on defendant’s substantial assistance,2 the Court, on May 7, 2003, principally sentenced defendant to only 220 months’ imprisonment on the first count and a consecutive term of 60 months’ imprisonment on the second count.

On appeal, defendant asks us to vacate his sentence and remand the case to a different judge for resentencing, contending that the District Court (1) “failed to consider arguments made by [defendant] in an attempt to mitigate his sentence” to no more than 180 months’ imprisonment, and (2) “failed to exercise its own independent discretion in sentencing [defendant] and simply relied upon the Probation Department’s sentence recommendation.” (Appellant’s Br. at 6-7.)

Generally, a defendant cannot appeal the extent of a downward departure made pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Lucas, 17 F.3d 596, 599 (2d Cir. 1994). “The only exceptions to this rule are that a defendant may appeal the extent of a downward departure if the departure *801was made in violation of the law or as a result of a misapplication of the Guidelines.” United States v. Moe, 65 F.3d 245, 251 (2d Cir. 1995). Neither of defendant’s arguments provides a basis for employing one of these exceptions. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED,