Whether the Ninth Circuit contravened Harmelin's plurality and Ewing by exempting all sentences imposed under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) from Eighth Amendment scrutiny

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW A plurality of the Court in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996-1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), held that although the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not mandate a proportionality review for non-capital sentences, it nevertheless does not give a sentencing court carte blanche to impose any sentence without some constitutional inquiry. The Court in Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29-30 (2003), essentially confirmed this. The questions presented are as follows: Did the Ninth Circuit contravene Harmelin’s plurality and Ewing by essentially exempting all sentences that a district court imposes under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), from Eighth Amendment scrutiny? Alternatively, should the Court overrule Harmelin and Ewing?