that courts adhere [during sentencing proceedings before a jury or a court] to the same rules of evidence which govern the guilt stage of a trial.) (citing Gregg, 428 U.S. at 203-04, 96 S.Ct. 2909; Williams, 337 U.S. at 246-47, 69 S.Ct. 1079); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) (providing that rules governing admission of evidence at criminal trials do not apply in sentencing proceedings in a death penalty case before a jury or the court); 21 U.S.C. § 848(j) (same). Contra O’Daniel, 328 F.Supp.2d at 1178-82. That the Rules are inapplicable does not render sentencing proceedings an evidentiary free-for-all. Bradley, 880 F.Supp. at 286-787. The court retains the inherent authority to manage proceedings and restrain the presentation of unreliable, irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial evidence. Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38,
holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply 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 recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings 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