Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray SHORT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 15-30224
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray SHORT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.