against Brent Brown is not grossly disproportional. In reaching this conclusion, we first note that the Commission correctly narrowed the definition of “offense” to include only the number of unlicensed salespeople who had sold at least one car, and by not counting unlicensed salespeople who had not sold any vehicles, the Commission properly imposed the penalty scheme adopted by the legislature. That scheme provides a mathematical formula that calculates the precise amount of the fine, rather than a range. Thus, there is no difference between the maximum fine allowed and what was imposed. ¶20 F ntrast to Bajakajian, which involved a single violation, the fine at issue was not excessive because “[t]here were multiple ill nternational Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 1347, 1363-65 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. Bieri, 68 F.3d 232, 237
holding that trade commissions 155 million penalty was well within constitutional limits even though fine was three times the value of infringing imports holding imposition of a further sum for excess of value of imported goods over declared value to be a penalty within jurisdiction of the federal district court though not expressly so declared holding that district court was not empowered to increase sentence by amending judgment to include a fine of 100 not even the suspension of payment of the fine changed the fact that the sentence was illegally increased holding that the 4 penalty of section 5  9lc9 was a fine for purposes of presentence incarceration credit holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine