Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in its wake that have essentially obliterated the mandatory minimum sentencing framework in our Commonwealth. In Alleyne, the United States Supreme Court held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime must be regarded as an element of the offense, and found beyond a reasonable doubt by the fact-finder. See Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163. After Alleyne, various mandatory minimum sentencing statutes have been held by this Court to be unconstitutional because they contain a non-severable, ‘proof at sentencing1 subsection stating that the “[t]he provisions of [the statute] shall not be an element of the crime[,]” and that “the applicability of [the statute] shall be determined at sentencing ... by a preponderance of the evidence.” See, e.g., Newman, 99 A,3d at 90, 101-102 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in Hopkins, our Supreme Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 42 pacs  9712 and 9713 are unconstitutional (B) holding that the proof at sentencing1 provision contained in 42 pacs  97121 is unconstitutional in light of alleyne and is not severable from the remainder of the statute (C) holding boards unconstitutional regulations severable from remainder (D) holding that 18 pacs  6317b is unconstitutional (E) holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced
Output (English): holding that 42 pacs  9712 and 9713 are unconstitutional