
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Brian NICKEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-11333
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 25, 2011.
    Paul Jones, Jane Elizabeth McBath, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven H. Sadow, Attorney at Law, Atlanta, GA, for D efendant-App ellant.
    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, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 369, 178 L.Ed.2d 238 (2010).

AFFIRMED.  