Fife v. Hill
This text of 50 F. App'x 857 (Fife v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Even if petitioner preserved his claim, there is simply nothing cruel or unusual about a seventy-month mandatory sentence for intentionally and unexcusedly shooting someone in the back with a firearm. See Andrade v. Attorney General, 270 F.3d 743, 754 (2001) (“[The Eighth Amendment] forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 995, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (“There can be no serious contention ... that a sentence which is not otherwise cruel and unusual becomes so simply because it is ‘mandatory.’ ”).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 F. App'x 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fife-v-hill-ca9-2002.