912 F2d 470 United States v. Gandjkarimi
912 F.2d 470
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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.
Ebrahim GANDJKARIMI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-10148.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 1990.*
Decided Aug. 21, 1990.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, KILKENNY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Ebrahim Gandjkarimi appeals his sentence, imposed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), following his conviction at jury trial. He contends the sentence ranges prescribed by the Guidelines impermissibly restrict the discretion of the trial judge to tailor a sentence to the specific circumstances of a defendant and thus violate due process. After Gandjkarimi filed his appeal, this court decided the due process issue in United States v. Brady, 895 F.2d 538 (9th Cir.1990). We held that sentences imposed under the Guidelines are as individualized as sentences imposed under the pre-Guidelines regime of complete judicial discretion. Therefore, the risk of a deprivation of liberty is no greater under the Guidelines than before. Id. at 542. Furthermore, there is no liberty interest in individualized sentencing in non-capital cases. United States v. Belgard, 894 F.2d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir.1990).
The argument that the Guidelines prevented the district court from fully considering Gandjkarimi's family concerns is "merely a more specific facial challenge to the Guidelines," and as such does not violate due process. Brady, 895 F.2d at 543.
The sentence is AFFIRMED.