Unpublished Disposition, 917 F.2d 28 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Charles M. KUNZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-10031.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 1990.* Decided Oct. 25, 1990.
Before HUG, NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Charles M. Kunz appeals his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines after his conviction upon a guilty plea for conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute hashish, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Kunz contends that the Guidelines impermissibly restrict the district court's ability to impose an individualized sentence and that the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof under the Guidelines violates due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We have held that the Guidelines do not violate due process by restricting the district court's discretion to individualize a defendant's sentence. United States v. Brady, 895 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir. 1990). We have also held that a defendant's due process rights at sentencing are satisfied so long as the district court makes factual determinations underlying application of the Guidelines by a preponderance of the evidence.1 United States v. Wilson, 900 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we reject Kunz's contentions. The district court's judgment is
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 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 Cir.R. 36-3
In his reply brief Kunz contends that even under the preponderance of the evidence standard the district court erred by finding that his prior convictions were the result of knowing and voluntary waivers of counsel. Because Kunz presented no evidence to support this position, we reject his contention
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
