Whether a state prisoner's due process rights were violated when the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating evidence related to his individual circumstances

?ou4s on jo ^4^ prison-ets order -fte senkne'n^ S6hw ICS.ldMffi'it ^ix-lk a/vienj^ due proems i/iMbr/ ) eby, lb uJ/'HiMd 4he dwse liberty mW" pcoie$s due 41^ wus ^ci^er^L /rf state &70 } Apr ! 'Jwd iudhi/1 /csJ^TA^Ters^forty koil cenu^brr&J fo £4^0^* odtr Mtistt Cm^s B k? m foe •tye l<3. primer ufovWe 1//A/W by &S.J dl^ZT 7Once lest held /osA. $ 1-^635 “ jo be a. 6^ AAffldrtfldJoe process //dat ’on /a 4'5 ^Scdd 1 dtdsioiiwk/ t^ld Jhe £)tC£&L iPs juclMidwn of 4he swkwpj A/[odc l d's oua spwk? ddsj t Jke 3. Qcxs Pcnwner l3>/uJd Je>h^n faloy vu4k ilte o^e 53 similar pCiSofiecs have <sj h'bffy InkrfshJut in. d'rreh'vc and CoMmwiL ,/i ICS.A $h^A8&),-^Medy !CS./\, in liq/ir &T He kSC C. J A^rla. tuJc&4<sU^ : l'4k Mcdd^ns WffC iVl 11 CAon) ckzisioi^ hdHe vjfona l/ehld& iM iJStU" iZ 7 O