Defendant-Appellant Renoj Cox-Cruz appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(A)(i). Cox-Cruz argues that the district court committed error when it sentenced him to 120-months’ imprisonment after denying his motion for a downward departure based on the low purity level of the heroin involved in his case and his offense role.

The district court’s denial of Cox-Cruz’s motion was not based on the merits of his arguments regarding the downward departure, but rather on the district court’s lack of authority to sentence Cox-Cruz below the 120-month minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). In Cox-Cruz’s case, the government did not file a motion for downward departure indicating that Cox-Cruz had provided substantial assistance. The district court therefore had no authority to grant a downward departure below the statutory minimum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e); see also United States v. Alvarez, 51 F.3d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1995). Additionally, because Cox-Cruz had more than one criminal history point, he was ineligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1), which provides for a limitation on applicability of the statutory minimum in specified situations. The district court therefore did not commit error when it determined that it lacked authority to sentence Cox-Cruz below the statutory minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)®.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.