holding that sentencing guidelines do not violate substantive or procedural due process by limiting the sentencing discretion of the district court
How later courts described this case
- holding that sentencing guidelines do not violate substantive or procedural due process by limiting the sentencing discretion of the district court
- Guidelines limitations on judicial discretion "do not infringe a defendant's right to an individualized sentence, whether or not such a right is constitutionally mandated."
- “In the sentencing context, ‘[d]ue process requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to assure the accurate presentation of reliable sentencing information to the [trial] court.’ ” (citation omitted)
- the Sentencing Guidelines do not infringe an individual’s right to due process in sentencing; the legislature is empowered to determine both the factors and the weighing of them for sentencing purposes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in the result. I do not agree that the Guidelines “potentially pose fewer due process concerns than the pre-Guide-lines sentencing practice.” Nor do I agree that the risk of deprivation of a defendant’s liberty interest is arguably less under the Guidelines than under traditional sentencing procedures. In fact, I see little to commend the Guidelines in any respect. The strict limitations they impose on the traditional sentencing discretion of district judges run contrary to the basic principle which should govern modern sentencing— individualized consideration of the offender, the crime, and all of the relevant facts and circumstances relating to both. United States v. Barker, 771 F.2d 1362, 1365 (9th Cir.1985). Nevertheless, under our Constitution, it is Congress which has the authority to determine fundamental sentencing policy. When in doing so it acts within the limitations imposed by that document, we are required to uphold its action. Here, I agree with the majority that the Guidelines do not offend the due process clause on its face or as applied. Accordingly, I concur that we must affirm the district court.