Whether the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines and punishments as the forfeiture amount was more than Chuck Bates' offense did not result in substantial financial loss

No question identified. : QUEST Tews PRESENTED FoR REVZEW _ Big SF) 532.04 m cond et with bork rl Sicp fee Covet Previous ruling mn He Horuyeitt deci's.on CHonuyeutt v, Unred Stebs, U5. [37, $.CF [626 (2014) and tle E. whcth A mend nent prob iGon od excesses £n& and punish ments as tle fork itupe @noupls Fe more than ‘ ZL ) Did le bower covets ere in heir ind rpretetion eve . as Chuck Bales ofl ense. ded not resilt in sibs7rerGel forancel ‘ Courts intarpretetjon Cond Ire with Long peas’ intend ihe, wed appear Te (eqs re. More then 2 Mere SV ate pent of a vretin but nsGed Pe pene SOME elear aur dence ond/o/ ° witaress for Cpess~ Cxoumetion dois nos fot. hodenrchans! , Ml) Ded Ho. destricl Court abuse its discrefon gud deny due freed in deny ony the motions of Chuck Babs fo Sever ple tora! Fron hel of his tathe Chodes Larry Bots as Cinuletive gud unpelabd Castimony and evidence SerwAd Lo Lam freal ¢ » Unrtd Stites Vv. Bates , Mr IS-20192, | Tenhesse&. Tudpent Entered Sept 5) 2014 Unitd Sfbs v. Bets, Mp 14 -E273, U.S Covrt of Appeals for the SirxcPh Crrewik. Suds ment entepech Suly 31, 2014 |