Court Opinion

ID: 9692218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:47.794378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.329754
License: Public Domain

GONZALEZ, District Judge,
dissenting:
I remain unconvinced that any constitutional violation has occurred.
*1164Article I of the Constitution of the United States vests “[a]ll legislative Powers ... in a Congress of the United States____”
Whether the sentencing discretion of federal judges should be limited and whether a system of guidelines is desirable must be left to the wisdom of Congress.
Since I can find nothing in the Constitution to prohibit the Congress from legislating unwisely, I must respectfully dissent.
NESBITT, District Judge,
dissenting, in which
SCOTT, District Judge joins:
I respectfully dissent. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the statutory framework and the various challenges to the Sentencing Act which have been well reviewed by Judge Marcus in the majority opinion. My view is that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is constitutional. The reasons for this conclusion are expressed in the fully-explored opinion of Chief Judge Rothstein of the Western District of Washington which rejects the constitutional and statutory challenges to the Act and concludes that “the Commission’s placement, composition and authority are constitutionally permissible as being in aid of the performance of a judicial function assigned to the Judicial Branch by Congress, rather than the Constitution.” United States v. Amesquita-Padilla, 691 P.Supp. 277, Order Denying Motion to Preclude Use of Sentencing Guidelines, at 290 (W.D.Wash.1988).
ATKINS, Senior District Judge, dissents.