Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as an excessive fine, what is the appropriate remedy! Although the United States Supreme Court in Bajakajian declined to consider the issue, we recognize that like the trial judge in Bajakajian (see note 27, supra), as PERAC points out, a number of courts, after concluding that a statutory forfeiture operated as an excessive fine in the particular circumstances of the case, have proceeded to determine a forfeiture amount that would not be excessive, and have imposed it. See, e.g., United States v. Castello, 611 F.3d 116, 121 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1251 (2011) (where forfeiture amount is constitutionally excessive, court must impose alternative fine in exact amount over which fine would become excessive); United States v. Sarbello, 985 F.2d 716, 724 (3d Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Cf. United States ex rel. Bunk v. Gosselin 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the eighth amendment succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions it provides excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted  (B) holding in context of case involving racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act violations that lower court is required to impose maximum fine amount that would not be excessive under eighth amendment (C) holding a fine excessive because it was greater than defendant could pay in a lifetime (D) holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment (E) holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause
Output (English): holding the eighth amendment succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions it provides excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted