Having pleaded guilty to mail fraud, Juan Owens appeals his 14-month sentence. Owens argues that the district court erroneously assumed that the Sentencing Guidelines in his case did not authorize a split sentence consisting of part imprisonment and part probation or supervised release with home confinement. He urges that his within-guidelines sentence must be vacated because the sentencing court committed a procedural error by incorrectly concluding that granting his request for a split sentence would constitute a downward departure.

Our authority to review sentences is limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision not to impose a split sentence. United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 310 F.3d 792, 793 (5th Cir. 2002). As the record in this case shows that the sentencing court was aware that it had the discretion to impose a split sentence, but declined to do so, we lack statutory jurisdiction under § 3742. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988).