OPINION

Appellant Mary Alice Vehoski pled guilty to one count of health care fraud, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1347, based on an indictment charging that a company she owned, Nurses Per Diem, billed Blue Cross for reimbursement of over $70,000 in nursing services that were never provided to patients between September 1996 and September 1998. After crediting her acceptance of responsibility, the presentence investigation report calculated that Vehoski had an adjusted offense level of 15 and 0 criminal history points, for which the sentencing guidelines recommend a sentence of 18-24 months. The District Court imposed the minimum sentence of eighteen months, finding no reason to downwardly depart. Vehoski filed a notice of appeal pro se, and current counsel was appointed. We denied his motion to withdraw as counsel, and this appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and will affirm.

Vehoski’s counsel filed an appellate brief raising only one issue: whether Vehoski’s sentence violates her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This claim is based on the alleged cruelty of preventing Vehoski from caring for her three young children for eighteen months while she serves her term of imprisonment. “[F]amily ties and responsibilities ... are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.” United States v. Sweeting, 213 F.3d 95, 99, 102-13 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting § 5H1.6) (the fact that defendant was single parent providing for five children, one of whom had Tourette’s Syndrome, did not *159 constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying downward departure). Moreover, an eighteen-month sentence for defrauding a victim of over $70,000 is not “grossly disproportionate” to the crime. Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S.-,-, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Therefore, this issue is patently frivolous.

Moreover, based upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that the District Court’s sentence comports with the applicable law and the sentencing guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 1347; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2Bl.1(b)(1)(E), 3B1.3, 3C1.1. The record reveals compliance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11 and 32 in the conduct of the plea hearing and in the procedure followed at sentencing. We do not have jurisdiction to review a reasonable sentence within the applicable guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269, 271-72 (3d Cir. 1989).

We affirm.