USA V. RAY SHORT, No. 15-30224 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 02 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30224 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00273-BLW v. MEMORANDUM* RAY SHORT, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Ray Short appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180month 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. 2 15-30224
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
