effective manner; (3) The kinds of sentences available; and (4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 9 . The circuit court’s oral summary of Eviota is unclear but, in its April 7, 2005 order denying Kahapea’s motion, the court noted that "Eviota committed theft of ... substantially less ... public funds than ... Kahapea. Concurring Opinion by ACOBA, J., with whom DUFFY, J., joins. I concur, except insofar as the majority suggests that our sentencing scheme con forms to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because in a particular case a consecutive sentence may be equated to an extended sentence. See Kaua v. Frank, 436 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As the circuit court of the first circuit
holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that based on its  intrinsicextrinsic analysis the hawaii supreme courts affirmance of the defendants extended sentence under hawaii revised statutes hrs  706662 was contrary to the us supreme courts decision in apprendi   recognizing the supreme courts holding in ferber holding that the supreme courts prior summary affirmance of a california appellate decision upholding the constitutionality of an obscenity statute precluded a threejudge federal court from finding that the same statute was unconstitutional