“information” relevant to an aggravating or mitigating factor, regardless of its admissibility under the federal rules of evidence, but provides that the information “may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c). Thus, not only does the statute is unconstitutional because it lacks proportionality review. Allen argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg mandates proportionality review whenever a death penalty statute allows the consideration of nonstatutory aggravating factors in the final sentencing decision. We disagree with Allen’s reading of the Supreme Court’s holding in Gregg. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 50-51, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984) (<HOLDING>). As the Supreme Court held in MeCleskey v.
holding that the eighth amendment does not require comparative proportionality review by an appellate court recognizing that the eighth amendment protects individuals from a lingering death holding that the eighth amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence but forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime holding that although proportionality review is an additional safeguard against arbitrarily imposed death sentences neither precedent including gregg nor the eighth amendment mandates proportionality review in every case recognizing the limited appellate review of sentences imposed under the initial voluntary sentencing standards