“[T]he vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that regulate the primary conduct of private sentences. Advisory sentencing guidelines regulate judges, not private individuals; they guide judicial discretion within a statutory range. Advisory sentencing guidelines do not define crimes or fix punishments.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that regulate the primary conduct of private sentences. Advisory sentencing guidelines regulate judges, not private individuals; they guide judicial discretion within a statutory range. Advisory sentencing guidelines do not define crimes or fix punishments.”
- acknowledging that "one of the main concerns behind arbitrary enforcement is the separation of powers"
- “the vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that regulate private conduct” including laws that define crimes, fix sentences, restrict speech, and regulate businesses
- J. Wilson, joined by J. Jill Pryor, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BY THE COURT:
A petition for rehearing having been filed and a member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges in active service on this Court having voted against granting a rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that this case will not be reheard en banc.