# United States v. Michael James Brady, United States of America v. Andre Michelle Lowe

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 30, 1990 · 895 F.2d 538

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479974

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James BRADY, Defendant-Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre Michelle LOWE, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 30, 1990
- **Citations:** 895 F.2d 538; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 996; 1990 WL 5748
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Browning, Boochever, Reinhardt
- **Cited by:** 72 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479974

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that sentencing guidelines do not violate substantive or procedural due process by limiting the sentencing discretion of the district court

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479974. Public record. Not legal advice.