United States v. Faisal Hashime, 722 F.3d 572

Hashime was convicted of possession, production, and distribution of child pornography.
Hashime challenged on Miranda grounds and asserted an Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence.
The concurrence emphasizes an Eighth Amendment jurisprudence conflict and argues for en banc review on that issue.
Fourth Circuit precedent holds no Eighth Amendment proportionality review for term-of-years sentences.
Other circuits permit proportionality review for term-of-years sentences, creating a circuit split.
The concurrence urges aligning Fourth Circuit doctrine with Supreme Court proportionality principles (Graham, Miller) and broader Eighth Amendment theory).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eighth Amendment proportionality review applies to term-of-years sentences	Hashime seeks en banc review to fix the rule.	Ming Hong controls; no proportionality review for term-of-years.	En banc review warranted to resolve the issue.

United States v. Ming Hong, 242 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 2001) (proportionality review unavailable for term-of-years sentence per circuit rule)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 46 (2010) (proportionality central to Eighth Amendment for noncapital sentences)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (no per se constitutional status; proportionality review applicable)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (narrow proportionality principle applies to noncapital sentences)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (no penalty per se constitutional; proportionality review guidance)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (concurring view on proportionality limitations)
Rhodes v. Maryland, 779 F.2d 1019 (4th Cir. 1985) (earlier Fifth/Fourth Circuit discussion on proportionality)
Polk v. United States, 905 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1990) (earlier alignment on proportionality review)
Whitehead v. United States, 849 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1988) (historical context on proportionality review)