Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in violation of the Eighth Amendment. An Eighth Amendment violation may be found only “ ‘in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross disproportionality.’ ” See Henderson v. Norris, 258 F.3d 706, 712 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (opinion of Kennedy, J.)); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (noting that the “gross disproportionality principle ... [is] applicable only in ... ‘exceedingly rare’ and ‘extreme’ case[s].” (citation omitted)). This is not such a case. Because Whitehead had been convicted of five prior felony drug offenses, see Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 276, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) (<HOLDING>), and because cocaine distribution represents a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a sentencing judge sitting without a jury may not find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty (B) holding that restitution is a criminal penalty that negates the imposition of prejudgment interest (C) holding that the penalty is applicable (D) holding that recidivism may support the imposition of a severe penalty (E) recognizing the unique and irrevocable nature of the death penalty and    the consequently overarching need for reliability in the imposition of such a penalty
Output (English): recognizing the unique and irrevocable nature of the death penalty and    the consequently overarching need for reliability in the imposition of such a penalty