Even those statistics are over-simplified, because the courts have ruled on varying grounds. United States v. Russell, 685 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D.Ga. 1988); United States v. Diaz, 685 F. Supp. 1213 (S.D.Ala. 1988); United States v. Perez. 685 F. Supp. 990 (W.D.Tex. 1988); United States v. Allen, 685 F. Supp. 827 (N.D.Ala. 1988); United States v. Lopez-Barron, 685 F. Supp. 725 (S.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Ortega Lopez. 684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Elliott, 684 F. Supp. 1535 (D.Colo. 1988); United States v. Martinez-Ortega, 684 F. Supp. 634 (D.Idaho 1988); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Molander, 683 F. Supp. 701 (W.D.Wis. 1988); United States v. Tolbert, 682 F. Supp. 1517 (D.Kan. 1988); United States v. Frank, 682 F. Supp. 815 (W.D.Pa. 1988); United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988); United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988).United States v. Richardson, 685 F. Supp. 111 (E.D.N.C. 1988); United States v. Johnson, 682 F. Supp. 1033 (W.D.Mo.), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Mistretta, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 2818, 100 L.Ed.2d 920 (1988); United States v. Ruiz-Villanueva, 680 F. Supp. 1411 (S.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Chambless, 680 F. Supp. 793 (E.D.La. 1988).
United States v. Russell, 685 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D.Ga. 1988); United States v. Erves, No. CR 87-478A, slip op. (N.D.Ga. March 22, 1988); United States v. Brodie, 686 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. Allen, 685 F. Supp. 827 (N.D.Ala. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Lopez, 684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D.Cal. 1988) ( en banc); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 1988) ( en banc); United States v. Frank, 682 F. Supp. 815 (W.D.Pa. 1988); United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988). Other courts have upheld their constitutionality.
The issue is squarely before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the appeal of Frank with oral argument scheduled for July 28, 1988. Due Process challenges similar to defendant's claim have been held meritorious in the following cases: United States v. Scott, 688 F. Supp. 1483 (D.N.M. 1988); United States v. Brittman, 687 F. Supp. 1329 (E.D.Ark. 1988) ( en banc); United States v. Perez, 685 F. Supp. 990 (W.D.Tex. 1988); United States v. Brodie, 686 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. Lopez, 684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D.Cal. 1988) ( en banc); United States v. Elliott, 684 F. Supp. 1535 (D.Colo. 1988); United States v. Martinez-Ortega, 684 F. Supp. 634 (D.Idaho 1988); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 1988) ( en banc). E. Relief
They in effect set minimum mandatory sentences, United States v. Alves, 688 F. Supp. 70, 80 (D.Mass. 1988), which is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. See United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003, 1004 (D.Md. 1988) (en banc). The judicial function in sentencing is to exercise discretion — to exercise judgment in a concrete fact situation.
The two central themes that are emphasized in these cases that find a due process violation are as follows: See, e.g., United States v. Brittman, 687 F. Supp. 1329, 1354 (E.D.Ark. 1988) (holding that the guidelines violate a defendant's right to individualized sentencing); Brodie, 686 F. Supp. 941, 952 (D.D.C. 1988) (holding that the method of sentencing "offends that principle of fair procedures and denies due process of law to defendants in criminal cases"); Ortega Lopez, 684 F. Supp. at 1513 ("[T]he mechanical formulas and resulting narrow ranges of sentences prescribed by the Guidelines violate defendants' right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment by divesting the Court of its traditional and fundamental function of exercising its discretion in imposing individualized sentences according to the particular facts of each case."); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003, 1005 (D.Md. 1988) ("The essence of due process is accountability, reason and a fair opportunity to be heard. These cannot be replaced by any administrative code, however extensively considered or precisely drawn."); United States v. Frank, 682 F. Supp. 815 (W.D.Pa. 1988) (holding that the guideline procedures do not adequately protect the right of defendant to present evidence and to challenge the basis of his sentence).
There is no merit to the claim that the Sentencing Guidelines deny due process. Appellant relies upon United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. En Banc 1988), but Bolding was appealed, and our court reversed the district court and found that the sentencing guidelines did not violate the Constitution. See United States v. Bolding, 876 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1989), and Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).
Finally, appellant argues that the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional in that they are violative of the due process clause. Relying largely upon the reasoning in United States v. Bolding, 683 F.Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 1988), appellant argues that the Guidelines' mechanical formulae for sentencing have denied appellant his due process right to "an articulated exercise of discretion" by a sentencing judge. See id. at 1005. This court has, however, already held that the Guidelines are not violative of the due process clause.
These cannot be replaced by any administrative code, however extensively considered or precisely drawn.United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003, 1005 (D.Md. 1988). Although Bolding concedes that a court's discretion may be limited by a statute establishing a definite sentence, he contends that a statute which sets a range of potential sentences creates a "sphere of discretionary power which is inherently judicial in nature."
District courts have argued that the criminal defendant in the past has always had either an individual judge or a particular act of Congress to thank, and to hold accountable, for his sentence. See United States v. Brodie, 686 F.Supp. 941, 951-55 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. Bolding, 683 F.Supp. 1003, 1005 (D.Md. 1988) (en banc). Any objection that it is a constitutionally inappropriate body of people who determine the ranges for a given crime is subsumed in the arguments that were made and rejected in the Mistretta case.
United States v. Molina, 688 F. Supp. 819 (D.Conn. 1988); United States v. Mendez, 691 F. Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); United States v. Terrill, 688 F. Supp. 542 (W.D.Mo. 1988); United States v. Brittman, 687 F. Supp. 1329 (E.D.Ark. 1988); United States v. DiBiase, 687 F. Supp. 38 (D.Conn. 1988); United States v. Olivencia, 689 F. Supp. 1319 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); United States v. Bester, 1988 WL 75460 (D.Minn. 1988) (en banc) (unpublished); United States v. Perez, 685 F. Supp. 990 (W.D.Tex. 1988); United States v. Horton, 685 F. Supp. 1479 (D.Minn. 1988); United States v. Allen, 685 F. Supp. 827 (N.D.Ala. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Fonseca, 686 F. Supp. 296 (S.D.Ala. 1988); United States v. Diaz, 685 F. Supp. 1213 (S.D.Ala. 1988); United States v. Ortega-Lopez, 684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D. Cal. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Russell, 685 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D.Ga. 1988); United States v. Wilson, 686 F. Supp. 284 (W.D.Okla. 1988); United States v. Molander, 683 F. Supp. 701 (W.D.Wisc. 1988); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Elliott, 684 F. Supp. 1535 (D.Colo. 1988); United States v. Tolbert, 682 F. Supp. 1517 (D.Kan. 1988); United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988); United States v. Frank, 682 F. Supp. 815 (W.D.Pa. 1988); United States v. Smith, 686 F. Supp. 847 (D.Colo. 1988); United States v. Lopez-Barron, 685 F. Supp. 725 (S.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988). These were the cases available on Westlaw at the time of writing.