Below, a set of eight statements is given, out of which the first sentence, given in bold, is fixed. The rest are jumbled in any random order. Out of the remaining seven statements, one does not belong to the passage. Rearrange the remaining sentences in the correct order and then answer the questions.

A. Ewing v. California (2003) asked the Supreme Court to consider whether harsher sentences imposed under three-strikes laws could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

B. In Ewing's case, the trial court chose to charge him with a felony after reviewing his criminal record, triggering the three-strikes law.

C. In 2000, Gary Ewing attempted to steal three golf clubs, valued at $399 each, from a golf shop in El Segundo, California. 

D. At the time, Ewing was on parole for three burglaries and a robbery that had resulted in a nine-year prison sentence. 

E. He was charged with felony grand theft, the unlawful taking of property valued at over $950.

F. "Three strikes” as a phrase in colloquial language has been used since the 1950s, which references the rule in baseball: three strikes and you're out. 

G. Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law for committing felony grand theft after having at least two other "serious" or "violent" felonies on his record.

H. The apex court upheld three-strikes, stating that, in the case at hand, the sentence was not “grossly disproportionate to the crime.”