Is Goseyun's argument that the district court was without authority to sentence him for first degree murder under section 1111 of the Criminal Code because the jury did not qualify his verdict as "without capital punishment" is meritless?

Goseyun's argument that the district court was without authority to sentence him because the jury did not qualify its verdict as "without capital punishment" is also meritless. The current penalty for first degree murder under section 1111 is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. United States v. Fountain, 768 F.2d 790, 799-800 (7th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 777 F.2d 345 (7th Cir.1985) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1647, 90 L.Ed.2d 191 (1986); United States v. Olmo, 642 F.2d 280, 281 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1087, 102 S.Ct. 647, 70 L.Ed.2d 623 (1981). Contrary to defendant's assertion, there is no ambiguity in the penalty provision, see Fountain, 768 F.2d at 800, and no need for the jury to qualify its verdict as "without capital punishment" in light of the invalidity of the death penalty provision.

Finally, the district court did not err in admitting into evidence the photograph showing the massive injuries to the victim's head. The trial judge's exercise of discretion in balancing the prejudicial effect and probative value of photographic evidence of this type is rarely disturbed. United States v. Brady, 579 F.2d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1074, 99 S.Ct. 849, 59 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979). Here, where the photograph was relevant evidence of both the cause of death and the willful, deliberate, and premeditated nature of the murder, the judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence.

Appellant's conviction is AFFIRMED.