Lamere

concurring:

I concur in the majority disposition. I write separately, however, to express my concern about the harsh sentence imposed on Lamere. Although I agree with the majority that our precedent requires us to conclude that Lamere’s mandatory thirty-year sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, nevertheless, a thirty-year sentence in these circumstances is troubling.

Apart from Lamere’s confession, the evidence against him was very weak. 1 Lamere has no prior convictions for abuse of a child, and was in Criminal History Category I. While I certainly share the majority’s concern about “the grave harm resulting from sexual crimes relating to children,” Memo, at 672, I believe that a thirty-year sentence on this record is yet another sad example of “the cruel and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing scheme adopted by Congress.” United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2006) (Reinhardt, J., concurring in the judgment), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 938 , 127 S.Ct. 2249 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2007); see also United States v. Looney, 532 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir.) (“In sum, *674 although we consider Ms. Looney’s sentence to be…

MEMORANDUM *

Raymond James Lamere (“Lamere”), a Native American, challenges his conviction and sentence for knowingly engaging in a sexual act with a minor under twelve on a Native American reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2241(c). Lamere asserts his conviction should be overturned because the district court committed error at trial by 1) failing to adequately administer an oath or affirmation to the alleged child victim prior to her testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause, 2) failing to strike testimony concerning Lamere’s prior drug use, and 3) questioning witnesses in a manner that evidenced judicial bias. Lamere asserts his mandatory minimum sentence should be found unconstitu *671 tional because it is grossly disproportionate to his crime in violation of the Eighth Amendment and discriminatory in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and due process. Lamere also claims the limitation on his computer access imposed as a condition of supervised release violates 18 U.S.C. § 3583 . We affirm in part and vacate in part.

I.

Lamere alleges the district court deprived him of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth…