Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01763/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven P. Bradley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 88-1763 

) (D. C. No. 

STEVEN P. BRADLEY, ) (D. Wyo.) ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FILED 

Uoired States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 7- 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CR-87-0069-01-J) 

Before LOGAN and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District 

Judge** 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); . 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore 

This appeal seeks review of the judgment and sentence of 

appellant Steven Bradley in the District Court for the District 

of Wyoming. 

All of the issues raised by Bradley on appeal are directed 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res jud.icata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable I.AYN R. PHILLIPS, United States District Judge 

for the Western District of Oklahana, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-1763 Document: 01019973434 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 

See Appellant's Brief at 3, 6. The issues, as framed by Bradley, 

are the following: 

I. Does the Sentencing Reform Act violate the 

Separation of Powers Doctrine? 

II. Are the Sentencing Guidelines a violation of 

Article I of the United States Constitution? 

III. Can the Government 

Designating the Placement of the 

in the Judicial Branch from the 

Rather than Declare the Commission 

Sever the Language 

Sentencing Commission 

Sentencing Reform Act 

Unconstitutional? 

IV. The Guidelines are Unconstitutional Because 

the Discretion Given to the Sentencing Commission was 

Excessive. 

See Appellant's Brief at 3, 27-28. 

The short and complete answer to Bradley's appeal is the 

Supreme Court's recent decision in Mistretta v. United States, 109 

s. Ct. 647 (1989) •. In Mistretta, the Supreme Court rejected each 

of the constitutional challenges· to the Sentencing Reform Act 

advanced by appellant. 1 Id. at 654-74. 

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of the District Court 

for the District of Wyoming is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Layn R. Phillips 

District Judge 

1 Bradley's appeal brief was filed on July 11, 1988, prior to 

the January 18, 1989 decision of the Supreme Court in Mistretta. 

Appellate Case: 88-1763 Document: 01019973434 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2