Filed: Jul. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11333 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar JULY 25, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00017-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BRIAN NICKEL, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (JULY 25, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11333 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar JULY 25, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00017-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BRIAN NICKEL, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (JULY 25, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: J..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11333 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JULY 25, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00017-HLM-WEJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY BRIAN NICKEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(JULY 25, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Nickel appeals his 10-year sentence for using a computer
connected to the internet to attempt knowingly to persuade, induce, entice, and
coerce someone under the age of 18 to engage in illegal sexual activity, for which
he could be charged with child molestation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
The appeal presents the issue:
Whether the imposition of the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence
violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment.
Nickel’s objection at the sentencing hearing to the constitutionality of the
mandatory minimum sentence required by § 2422(b) was sufficient to preserve, for
appeal, his claim that the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. The appropriate standard of review is de novo.
Because a ten-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to this crime, his
Eighth Amendment claim is without merit. For background, see United States v.
Brenton-Farley,
607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,
131 S. Ct. 369
(2010).
AFFIRMED.
2