Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his 100-year sentence on state-court murder and firearm charges on grounds that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under Miller, 132 S.Ct. 2455, due to fact that he was only 16 years old at time of offenses. Record showed that defendant had failed to raise instant 8th Amendment claim in state court proceedings, although record demonstrated that defendant had potentially viable 8th amendment claim, where trial court did not consider defendant’s youth as mitigating factor when imposing instant de-facto life sentence. Moreover, remand was required since defendant’s habeas claim was “premature,” where defendant still had potential under Illinois law for filing successive petition for post-conviction relief that raised instant 8th Amendment claim. Ct. also directed Dist. Ct. to further consider defendant’s habeas petition once state court acts on any successive petition for post-conviction relief. Dissent maintains that defendant had defaulted any 8th Amendment claim due to his failure to raise it in his direct appeal or initial petition for post-conviction relief, and that Miller did not apply to instant case where defendant’s offenses did not require imposition of death/mandatory life term that was at issue in Miller.