ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Daniel Lozano-Morales pled guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(1), (2) and (b)(2). He was sentenced to fifty-seven months imprisonment. He appeals claiming the government improperly usurped the district court’s authority to sentence him concurrently by delaying his federal prosecution. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss.
Background
Lozano-Morales was deported to Mexico on October 22, 1998, following a 1995 felony conviction for aggravated battery in Dona Anna County, New Mexico. On February 21, 2002, he was convicted of battery upon a peace officer in New Mexico. On May 7, 2002, while in the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility serving his state battery sentence, Lozano-Morales was interviewed by an Immigration Officer, who discovered he had unlawfully re-entered the United States subsequent to a felony conviction and deportation. On February 26, 2003, Lozano-Morales was indicted for illegal re-entry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(1), (2) and (b)(2). On April 10, 2003, Lozano-Morales pled guilty to the indictment. Thereafter, he filed a motion for downward departure based on cultural assimilation, delay in prosecution and family ties and responsibilities. The district court denied his motion and sentenced him to fifty-seven months imprisonment, the lowest sentence in the applicable guideline range.1 This timely appeal followed.
Discussion
Lozano-Morales claims the executive branch (the prosecutor) improperly usurped the district court’s sentencing power by delaying his federal prosecution until the completion of his state sentence, thereby preventing the district court from sentencing him concurrently. He con*238tends this conduct violates the separation of powers doctrine.
Lozano waived this argument by pleading guilty. “[A] voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses.” United States v. Salazar, 323 F.3d 852, 856 (10th Cir.2003).2 “When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Id. (quotations omitted).3 He also waived the argument by failing to raise it before the district court. United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 352 F.3d 1325, 1328 (10th Cir.2003) (“Ordinarily, appellate courts will not consider arguments for the first time on appeal .... ”).
To the extent Lozano-Morales is appealing the district court’s denial of his motion for downward departure, we lack jurisdiction to review it.4 “Our review of a sentencing court’s refusal to grant a downward departure is narrow.” United States v. Browning, 252 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir.2001). “Absent the trial court’s clear misunderstanding of its discretion to depart, or its imposition of a sentence which violates the law or incorrectly applies the guidelines, we have no jurisdiction to review a refusal to depart.” United States v. Coddington, 118 F.3d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir.1997) (quotations omitted).
[Cjourts of appeals cannot exercise jurisdiction to review a sentencing court’s refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines except in the very rare circumstance that the district court states that it does not have any authority to depart from the sentencing guideline range for the entire class of circumstances proffered by the defendant.... This exception does not apply when a sentencing court concludes under the defendant’s particular circumstances that it does not have the authority to depart.
Browning, 252 F.3d at 1160-61 (quotations omitted). Because the district court did not misunderstand its authority to depart downward,5 we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s refusal to depart.
Based on the above, this appeal is DISMISSED.