UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DELBERT L. LANE, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the sentence, holding that the Sentencing Guidelines do not violate the separation of powers doctrine or the right to due process.
Delbert L. Lane pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine and was sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines. He appealed, challenging the constitutionali…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutionality Of Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Delbert L. Lane was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment following a guilty plea to one count of distributing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The only issue on appeal is the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines. Lane claims the guidelines are in violation of the separation of powers doctrine and his right to due process. We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.1
Lane’s separation of powers argument has been carefully considered and decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court in United States v. Mistretta, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 647, 658-75, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989).
Lane also contends that the guidelines so restrict judicial discretion that they deny him due process of law. He argues that the guidelines do not allow individual sentencing, but instead required a computerized and mechanical approach. Lane’s argument has been rejected by this court in United States v. Nunley, 873 F. 2d 182, 186 (8th Cir.1989), and United States v. Brittman, 872 F. 2d 827, 828 (8th Cir.1989).
Lane further asserts that due process is offended by unduly restricting the availability of probation. We are not persuaded. “There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103-04, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); cf. Hake v. Gunter, 824 F. 2d 610, 613-14 (8th Cir.1987).
We uphold the sentence imposed by the district court.
. The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Bigelow, 914 F.2d 966 (7th Cir. 1990)
-
United States v. Follett, 905 F.2d 195 (8th Cir. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979)
- United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Brittman, 872 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1989)
- Hake v. Gunter, 824 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1987)