cannot agree that the Eleventh Circuit either directly or implicitly has disapproved the use of the instructions. In response to the concerns raised in Justice Shaw’s special concurrence, I cannot agree that continued adherence to the Tedder standard somehow will undermine the constitutionality of Florida’s death penalty statute. Much case law says expressly and directly the opposite. E.g., Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 465, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3165, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) {Tedder standard expressly upheld as constitutional); Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939, 955-56, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 3427-28, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983) {Tedder standard cited as a factor contributing to individualized sentencing); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 294-95, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2298-99, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct.
recognizing tedder as a significant procedural safeguard holding that the district court committed procedural error by failing to provide an indication of what facts it relied on to make a significant variance from the advisory guidelines range holding that a procedural challenge does not mean plaintiffs injury is procedural if plaintiff lives or recreates in the area holding that reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence describing factors demonstrating procedural error holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error