Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayne WOLERY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 10-30081
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayne WOLERY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 737–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayne WOLERY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30081.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Alan Steven Yockelson, Esquire, Law Office of Alan S. Yockelson, San Clemente, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rayne Wolery appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted sexual exploitation of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wolery contends that the district court erred by failing to recognize its authority to depart downward from the 15-year mandatory minimum sentence called for by the statute. This contention lacks merit. In the absence of a motion from the government, the district court did not have discretion to depart downward from the mandatory minimum. See United States v. Valente, 961 F.2d 133, 134-35 (9th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Quach, 302 F.3d 1096, 1103 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002).
Wolery also contends that the mandatory minimum sentence violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This contention also lacks merit. See United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.