With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". someone convicted of a serious drug crime. 501 U.S. 957, 961, 996, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). And, in Rummel v. Estelle, the Supreme Court upheld a sentence of life imprisonment for a repeat offender convicted of relatively minor felonies. Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 265-66, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980). In light of these decisions, the state appeals court could reasonably have determined that Mr. Brown’s sentence was proportionate to the crime. The crime was serious, and the court could have sentenced Mr. Brown to life imprisonment. In giving Mr. Brown a lesser sentence of 30 years, the trial court did not contradict or fail to reasonably apply Supreme Court precedents on proportionality. See United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Thus, no reasonable jurist could credit Mr.

A: holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse
B: holding that pornography depicting actual children can be prescribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the states interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process
C: holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse
D: holding that an 80year sentence for production of child pornography was not disproportionate to the crime be cause of the devastating consequences of sexual abuse of children
D.