I understand he had his appeal chance and the Supreme Court denied hearing it, letting the appeal stand. I have not read the appeal judgements, but a judge sentencing that includes “facts” that were not established by the jury of his peers, is the problem. You are found guilty of X, you were not found guilty of Y, your sentence is what it is because you did Y, So says the prosecution who did not charge it or did not meet the evidentiary threshold to persuade a jury.    None the less the judge includes that as a fact established. But he didn’t wave his right to a jury trial did he? So who established that fact? Juries are supposed to establish the facts of a case. Justice served? Seems like no to me so far.