U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

United States v. Vanausdal

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 10, 2008

269 F. App'x 652

Counsel

Shawna Yen, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Arthur Pirelli, Esq., Law Office of Arthur Pirelli, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. Caparotta (District Court, E.D. New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Vanausdal appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transport and shipping of visual images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vanausdal contends that the five-year statutory mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is unconstitutional, offending the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. These contentions fail because Congress had a rational basis for creating mandatory minimum sentences to combat child pornography, see Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 458, 465, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991), and because Vanausdal’s five-year sentence is not cruel and unusual, see United States v. Meiners, 485 F.3d 1211, 1212 (9th Cir. 2007).

We decline to address Vanausdal’s remaining contention in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.