881 F2d 1084 United States v. Hurley
881 F.2d 1084
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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.
Timothy Lee HURLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1406.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 1989.*
Decided July 27, 1989.
Before TANG, NELSON, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORNADUM*
Appellant Timothy Hurley contends that the district court erred in sentencing him under the provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. He asserts that the Act is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in Gubienzo-Ortiz v. Kanahele, 857 F.2d 1245 (9th Cir.1988). In that case, we held that the Act violated the separation of powers doctrine and was an excessive delegation of legislative power. However, the Supreme Court has recently held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine and that Congress properly delegated its authority to the Sentencing Commission. Mistretta v. United States, 109 S.Ct. 647, 658, 675 (1989). We have since vacated our decision in Gubienzo-Ortiz. Accordingly, Hurley's appeal is without merit.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case suitable for submission without oral argument because the legal standard is established and the result is clear. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not suitable for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3