States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670, 676-677 (2d Cir.1973) (noting that it would be “unthinkable ... to permit government agent to instigate robberies and beatings merely to gather evidence to convict other members of a gang of hoodlums”)). Since Hampton and Russell were decided, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has had a number of occasions to consider the applicability of the due process clause to convictions of defendants who are shown to be predisposed. E.g., United States v. Milam, 817 F.2d 1113 (4th Cir.1987) (discussing due process argument in relation to counterfeiting case); United States v. Akinseye, 802 F.2d 740, 742-743 & n. 2 (4th Cir.1986) (making distinction between entrapment and due process claim); United States v. Hunt, 749 F.2d 1078 (4th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 3479,
recognizing that a due process claim may exist apart from entrapment issue recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that a reduction in punitive damages to comply with the due process clause is a federal constitutional issue not a fact issue requiring jury consideration recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim