Whether the district court erred in denying petitioner's motion for a new trial based on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . I. Quarter, 2) Ligue of whe TiWeavetiing Clade © B baad Uelain. 1) Co vedi ; ; <otespefon vi eine STAs \42. S657 4389 (2eas) awa ue, BurFon” calsavtes Welaing 1 Bortagev. SdNa scars 7) ws, 2.04 (2914), He. DISTRNE™ Cours Wag RequT hk é y en . | 1AEQ WO CONS ee Perntod NF RVoleus Adqualens— Ralseo Md 4 FF, Nov2od *Nalare A TinsT sep Aer CABOTT OA Ta QWwsa b ? Wats wo ane SQ iW ds CAR SHE AISTALN CourS—Ulag AuTHoR TE eA . ‘nz, AUN Sola Wave cous laecen, THe Dects Ve He bag ne) | Geenage v. dre STBTE, sop ea, ann vt Madea bd Wiben "Wuldy Ware 4 pp \ten yo Perrriodezs Codvicrton Ada SdH adcemed Tro Life LM pAtsodWsde ONDEL Qt USE 84166) : dL. deter 7a Lew oF whe “holes f being” Hetaitg! Bitrder. vQUEo syayss (42 S.C 2833 (aoaa), Kequratay tilac CRIMI KL STEUSER “Um posing pena lwrsg vo Se “consivey symiarty’ Ada WE ‘bree play wiry SHE AfSedce of Asty BAZTOR Cavs RYTON Uses, a8 Requinco By fuerags v Ut ivED STS, 04 C9014) ada Vee" (dreplal kg cH aad ge Ta bid Hola ray id Codcepe tors YANNEa STATES 142. S.c1_ 2389 Qo2g) whe peritiodeg Ms aitrien No A GVA so yar He Cover Below may Ma Ke TAPS A ere Als) ant TO He Fiase7 AsTadcee,, \ 9 8, Oderee ta Lignt °F rte" Co Wate eal Conse Queskes” Hotatig 7A Bail v. J Meo STAVES, ATO JS, BSb (1985) re Covesx peter} Swovia Wave codsinrhso se Hala‘itgs ta Codcepctod sve, vs RU RRAE,SYPKA, AR Hey Applteo ro PaTirvodses codevnest bbe Sesvetess , WH Gud¥S Ode ade four | Regacoless of v4le Fac View, evsA © Rel Wece geauven on Count Pour, Grae "Aur: for EAdadce dss Oder al USe 64K (1) @) HE perartsner Wovin awri| Boe Tachdg te Life ween od Cou dT ONe LM podea porsvak to ‘Nite Felony OtJq Conictiods’ ada 21 use Sst 6 it