Case Name: Jesse Randall FIFE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 01-35900; D.C. No. CV-99-01578-MRH
Parties: Jesse Randall FIFE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 857–858

Head Matter:
Jesse Randall FIFE, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Jean HILL, Superintendent, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 01-35900.
D.C. No. CV-99-01578-MRH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
Before REAVLEY, KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Even if petitioner preserved his claim, there is simply nothing cruel or unusual about a seventy-month mandatory sentence for intentionally and unexcusedly shooting someone in the back with a firearm. See Andrade v. Attorney General, 270 F.3d 743, 754 (2001) ("[The Eighth Amendment] forbids only extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 995, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) ("There can be no serious contention . that a sentence which is not otherwise cruel and unusual becomes so simply because it is 'mandatory.' ").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.