factors do distinguish Defendant from other murder defendants. The inclusion of the particular nonstatutory aggravating factors in this case ensures the “individualized determination” required by Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 878, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument. C.Whether the nonstatutory aggravating factors are impermissibly du-plicative. Defendant argues the Government’s nonstatutory aggravating factors are impermissibly duplicative because they may rely on the same evidence. (Dkt. No. 291 at 28). The issue is not whether the facts relied upon are duplicative but whether aggravating factors themselves are duplicative. See Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 399, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Fell, 531 F.3d 197,
holding that factors as a whole were not duplicative holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole recognizing same factors holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole