U.S. v. Estrada

25 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Weidner, (N.D.Ind. 1988)

    692 F. Supp. 968 (N.D. Ind. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    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).

  2. U.S v. Brown

    690 F. Supp. 1423 (E.D. Pa. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    The guidelines have been upheld as the result of a proper exercise of an executive function, United States v. Chambless, 680 F. Supp. 793 (E.D.Pa. 1988); Johnson, 682 F. Supp. at 1033, a judicial function, United States v. Ruiz-Villanueva, 680 F. Supp. 1411 (S.D.Cal. 1988), and a legislative-executive function, United States v. Schwartz, 692 F. Supp. 331 (1988). The guidelines have been struck down as violative of due process, United States v. Frank, 682 F. Supp. 815 (W.D.Pa. 1988), the doctrine of separation of powers, United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988) and as constituting an overly broad delegation of the legislative power to proscribe punishment, United States v. Brodie, 686 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988). Although it would probably be difficult to add much to the extensive judicial discussion on the constitutional issues involved in this case, the federal criminal justice system should not be put "on hold" pending appellate review.

  3. U.S. v. Swapp

    695 F. Supp. 1140 (D. Utah 1988)   Cited 3 times

    The extensive hearings, elaborate fact-finding processes, and myriad policy decisions undertaken by the Commission in promulgating general rules of future applicability, are clear evidence that the Commission has performed the legislative function of prescribing the punishment for crime.United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312, 1324 (D.Minn. 1988) (Heaney, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation) (citations omitted). We conclude that the work of the commission is properly characterized as legislative, not judicial.

  4. U.S. v. Rosario

    687 F. Supp. 426 (N.D. Ill. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Considering the number of criminal defendants who will be sentenced in the meantime, this court feels compelled to make an immediate ruling on the constitutionality of the Guidelines.See, e.g., United States v. Brittman, 687 F. Supp. 1329 (E.D.Ark. 1988); United States v. Brodie, 686 F. Supp. 941 (D.D.C. 1988); United States v. Ortega Lopez, 684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D.Cal. 1988); United States v. Bolding, 683 F. Supp. 1003 (D.Md. 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. Smith, 686 F. Supp. 847 (D.Colo. 1988). Different courts have adopted different rationales for striking down the Guidelines.

  5. United States v. Terrill

    688 F. Supp. 542 (W.D. Mo. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    What has been said in a number of those opinions makes it unnecessary for me to do any more than cite the cases in which the questions presented by defendant Terrill's motion have been decided in accordance with my view of the applicable law. Chief Judge Wright, unlike Judge Sachs, did have the benefit of Judge Heaney's comprehensive decision in United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988). Estrada has been cited and followed in many of the cases that have concluded that the Guidelines are constitutionally invalid.

  6. U.S. v. Brittman

    687 F. Supp. 1329 (E.D. Ark. 1988)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the guidelines violate a defendant's right to individualized sentencing

    It has attempted to obtain copies of the opinions already handed down, but it is also aware that it is in the interest of all concerned to have these challenges resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible. For the reasons set forth below this Court is declaring the Sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Commission unconstitutional, but it agrees with Judge Heaney in U.S.A. v. Jesus Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312 (D.Minn. 1988), that the following provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act are severable and should therefore remain in effect: (a) the detailed set of principles or sentencing standards which narrow the judge's discretion in imposing sentences;

  7. U.S. v. Velez-Naranjo

    691 F. Supp. 584 (D. Conn. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Discussion In light of the many decisions preceding this court's opinion, the court dispenses with a summary of the background of the Act, referring the reader instead to United States v. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463, 1465 (S.D.Cal. 1988) and United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312, 1315-17 (D.Minn. 1988), for cogent statements on the Act's statutory framework. Since the February 18, 1988 release of United States v. Arnold. 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988) — the first district court ruling addressing the constitutionality of the Act — approximately 94 district judges have ruled on this issue, with 54 judges striking down the guidelines and 40 upholding them. Federal Judges Strike Down Sentencing Rules, 14 Conn.L.Trib. 20, May 16, 1988, at 10.

  8. U.S. v. Perez

    685 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Tex. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    It is difficult to imagine a more substantive exercise of authority than that delegated to the Commission — prescribing the punishment for crime.United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312, 1328 (D.Minn. 1988). Despite the Act's placement of the Commission within the judiciary, the responsibilities of the Commission are clearly nonjudicial in nature.

  9. United States v. Ortega Lopez

    684 F. Supp. 1506 (C.D. Cal. 1988)   Cited 33 times

    In addition, we find ample precedent, both in long-standing Supreme Court decisions and in more recent courts of appeals cases, to support our view that Article III judges are constitutionally prohibited from performing extra-judicial government service on the order of full-time membership on the Sentencing Commission. We concur with Judge Heaney's analysis in United States v. Estrada, 680 F. Supp. 1312, 1330-31 (D.Minn. 1988), that such service is impermissible. "[E]xecutive or administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature may not be imposed on judges holding office under Art. III of the Constitution."

  10. United States v. Seluk

    691 F. Supp. 525 (D. Mass. 1988)   Cited 6 times

    Decisions of other courts, even greater in number, sustained the challenge to constitutionality. See, e.g., 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. Arnold, 678 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D.Cal. 1988). I concur in the conclusions reached by Judge Mazzone in Alves, the only other case thus far decided in this district, and I write further only to consider the basic premises of the separation-of-powers and due-process arguments emphasized in the submissions before me and to address some points not explicitly addressed in the Alves opinion and others cited above as sustaining the SRA.