and that exclusion of their evidence challenging Maharaj’s eligibility for citizenship violated their rights. The Court previously addressed those arguments, and that analysis applies with equal force here: It is well-settled that “[a] defendant’s right to present ... evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions,” and that rulings excluding evidence from trial “do not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long as they are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (citation omitted); see also Lannert v. Jones, 321 F.3d 747, 753-54 (8th Cir.2003) (“A defendant does not have an unfettered right to ,1288-89 (9th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Clarke II, 628 F.Supp.2d at 14. The only new
holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that sixth amendment right to have jury determine essential elements of the offense does not encompass determination of questions of law holding that under the sixth amendment right to trial by jury aggravating factors that operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a charged offense must be found by a jury holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel