Harris

join with respect to Parts I and III, dissenting from the order rejecting the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The panel in this case has written an opinion for the purpose of rebuking Congress as to its policy for sentencing violent criminals. None of the legal issues presented is close or difficult: Defendants did, indeed, use firearms to commit five violent robberies; the district court did sentence them in accord with applicable law; the sentences do not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and usual punishments-not by a long shot. As the panel readily admits, the only reason it is publishing an opinion is “to urge Congress to reconsider its scheme of mandatory consecutive minimum sentences and to grant district court judges the discretion to set sentences at the level appropriate for the circumstances of a particular defendant and his or her crimes.” United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082, 1083 (9th Cir.1998).

I

I do not believe it is appropriate to use an opinion of this court as a vehicle for political lobbying. Once a sentencing scheme is found to be constitutional-as this one has been, see United States v. Wilkins, 911 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir.1990)-the…

Order; Dissent by

ORDER

The panel has voted to deny appellants’ petition for rehearing and Judge Schroeder has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judges Wiggins and Noonan recommend rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en bane. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en bane consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.