For this reason, O'Connor reasoned that Ewing's 25-years-to-life sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Because the 15-year delay in sentencing was not justified by any legitimate reason and was prejudicial, the sentence violated the Due Process Clause.

Nor is he concerned that the sentence would violate his basic rights.

Mr. Krenz argued that his conviction and six-and-a-half-year sentence violated his human rights because he broke no East German law.

Six days later an appeals court judge overruled the decision on the ground that the original sentence violated the Constitution.

Andrade argued that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the district court rejected this claim.

In an interview with PBS, he said that the mandatory minimum sentence for drug offenses violates due process and separation of powers.

The others in the 5-to-4 majority were willing to accept the existence of such a principle, but decided that the sentence did not violate it.

(The sentence violates parallel structure.)

Daniels argued that his sentence violated the Constitution because it was based in part on two prior convictions that were themselves unconstitutional.