*723 OPINION

Humberto Lopez-Mendoza appeals his conviction and sentence for reentry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Lopez-Mendoza raises only one claim on appeal, contending that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a downward departure based on cultur-. al assimilation. Because a decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is a highly factual determination within the exclusive province of the sentencing court, this court will only review such a decision if it reflects a purely legal determination, such as the district court’s misapprehension of its authority to depart. United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214, 230 (4th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the sentencing transcript as set forth in the joint appendix and find that the district court considered the grounds raised in Lopez-Mendoza’s motion and concluded that a downward departure was not warranted under the facts of the case. Therefore, we find that this claim is not subject to appellate review.

Accordingly, we affirm Lopez-Mendoza’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.