Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0928-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray SHORT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30224
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Ann Wick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kent D. Jensen, Kent D. Jensen Law Office, PC, Burley, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ray Short appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of a minor child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Short contends that his mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years violates the Eighth Amendment because it is cruel and unusual punishment. He argues that, given his age, poor health, and life expectancy, the 15-year sentence is effectively a life sentence, which is disproportionate to his offense. We review de novo. See United States v. Shill, 740 F.3d 1347, 1355 (9th Cir. 2014). Short’s contention lacks merit because the sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the conduct underlying the offense. See id. (a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment when it is grossly disproportionate to the crime).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.