from the eleven boxes of pseudoephed-rine that Aguilar-Muniz was convicted of possessing, adjusted upward for obstruction of justice and downward for acceptance of responsibility and timely notification of intent to plead guilty. Even if Aguilar-Muniz had not waived appeal of his sentence, an appeal based on the Eighth Amendment would fail. Outside of the death penalty context, the Eighth Amendment is offended only by sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 959, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 129 (9th Cir.1992). Longer sentences based on similar drug violations have been held not to violate the Eighth Amendment. See United States v. Van Winrow, 951 F.2d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In addition to evaluating the issues raised
holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute holding that life sentence without parole for defendant convicted of possession with intent to distribute 1519 grams of cocaine does not violate the eighth amendment holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine holding that a life sentence without parole for possession of 650 grams of cocaine base did not violate the eighth amendment