of rules of evidence at sentencing proceedings before the court); United States v. Bradley, 880 F.Supp. 271, 290-91 (M.D.Pa. 1994) (.[The Constitution] has never been held to req n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (stating that courts possess inherent authority to manage the course of trials through evidentiary rulings); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 440, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963) (noting courts’ authority to exclude material evidence in the absence of constitutional or statutory rules); Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 609-10 (3d Cir.1995) (stating that courts possess inherent power to issue orders that are in harmony, although not required, by federal rules); United States v. O’Driscoll, 250 F.Supp.2d 432, 435-36 (M.D.Pa.2002) (<HOLDING>). 15 . Neither party argues that the sentencing
recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings holding that although federal rules of evidence do not govern sentencing proceedings before a jury in a death penalty case court possesses inherent authority to exclude relevant evidence as unreliable or prejudicial holding that disputes as to evidence admitted at a restitution hearing are meritless because the rules of evidence do not apply during sentencing proceedings holding that although federal rules of evidence do not govern sentencing proceedings before a jury in a death penalty case court should exclude as unreliable hearsay evidence of unadjudicated misconduct holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution