OpenJurist

917 F2d 28 United States v. Diemer

917 F.2d 28

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Brett Charles DIEMER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-50091.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1990.*
Decided Oct. 25, 1990.

Before HUG, NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Brett Charles Diemer contends that the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) are unconstitutional because the Sentencing Commission, which promulgated the Guidelines, was established in violation of the requirements of the presentment clauses, U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7 cls. 2 and 3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and we affirm.

3

This case is controlled by our recent decisions in United States v. Scampini, No. 89-50378, slip op. 12419, 12428 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 1990); United States v. Reed, No. 89-10284, slip op. 11515, 11518 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 1990); United States v. Litteral, Nos. 88-1453, 89-10039, slip op. (9th Cir. July 30, 1990).1 In those cases we held that the promulgation of the Guidelines did not violate the presentment clauses. Further discussion is unnecessary. See Reed, No. 89-10284, slip op. at 11518.

4

Therefore, Diemer's sentence is affirmed.

5

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3

1

Diemer states that this case should be controlled by United States v. Robbins, No. 89-50580. This court issued an unpublished memorandum disposition in Robbins on September 28, 1990. While Robbins is not binding precedent, we note that our decision here is consistent with Robbins