individual.... ” Pepper, 562 U.S. at 487, 131 S.Ct. 1229 (citing Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996)). “[T]he punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.” Pepper, 562 U.S. at 487-88, 131 S.Ct. 1229. “Permitting sentencing courts to consider the widest possible breadth of information about a defendant ensures that the punishment will suit not merely the offense but the individual defendant.” Id. at 488, 131 S.Ct. 1229. “[A]s a general proposition, a sentencing judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 398, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). The conduct taken into consideration must be
holding that the due process clause prohibits states from requiring defendants to prove their incompetency by clear and convincing evidence holding due process is not violated when failure to receive notice is the result of attorneys decision to abandon law practice holding that although in some cases it may be proper to require a plaintiff to identify a source by name silicon graphics does not require naming as opposed to identification of sources it is possible to identify sources and provide other corroborating details without disclosing the names of the sources holding that the taxpayers sufficiently stated their commerce clause and due process clause challenges in their claim for a refund holding that the due process clause does not require courts to abandon their ageold practice of seeking information from outofcourt sources to guide their judgment toward a more enlightened and just sentence