the Eighth Circuit, have held this disclaimer to be effective. See id. (“We agree with those courts which have concluded that the death penalty protocol is unenforceable by individuals.”); Nichols v. Reno, 124 F.3d 1376, 1376 (10th Cir.1997) (rejecting the plaintiffs premise that the United Stateg Attorneys’ Manual provided him a protect-able interest); United States v. Myers, 123 F.3d 360, 355-66 (6th Cir.1997) (finding that a violation by the government of the DOJ manual, manual, by itself, did not create a basis for suppressing grand jury testimony); United States v. Busher, 817 F.2d 1409, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987) (citing the manual’s waiver and concluding that the plaintiff “therefore is not entitled to rely on it”); cfi United States v. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260, 264 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In light of the uniform federal circuit court
holding that recusal was justified if not mandated where the district judge could not bring himself to do what the law required in imposing a sentence in accordance with the sentencing guidelines holding that although wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances it is not mandated in all cases holding that state statutes which merely establish procedures and do not mandate any particular substantive result do not give rise to a statecreated liberty interest holding that sentencing guidelines commentary must be given controlling weight unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is plainly inconsistent with the guidelines itself holding that similar doj guidelines not mandated by statute or the constitution do not confer substantive rights on any party