With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". drug offenders, and not non-violent property offenders, to mandatory sentencing treats these two similarly situated groups differently. This, appellant argues, violates the equal protection clause. We disagree. Appellant has failed to show that non-violent drug offenders are subjected to a level of scrutiny higher than that stated above. See Appellant’s brief at 11-16. “Consequently, only a minimum level of scrutiny need be applied to determine whether the statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative objective.” Eicher, 605 A.2d at 352 (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 374 Pa.Super. 431, 543 A.2d 548 (1988)). This Court has repeatedly held that mandatory sentencing provisions pass constitutional muster. See Eicher, 605 A.2d at 352; see also Plass, 636 A.2d at 641 (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Jones, 374 Pa.Super. 431, 543

A: holding that 18 pacsa  5711 and its federal counterpart 18 usc  25174 prevent the government from introducing recordings of communications between spouses resulting from tap on third partys telephone
B: holding failure of reemployment drug test did not constitute grounds for reducing employees benefits
C: holding 18 pacsa  7508 effectuates the legislative purpose of reducing drug crimes
D: holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident
C.