Dude. You were convicted of sexual assault when you grabbed a nine-year old and thirteen-year old girl in 2000. After you were released from your subsequent conviction, your supervised release was revoked when you skipped sex offender treatment sessions and got a job at a fair frequented by children.
Thereafter, you were busted for possession of child pornography that depicted incest and child rape. Which you admitted turned you on. A crime for which you were sentenced to the mandatory minimum (fifteen years in prison) plus a lifetime of supervised release.
Did you really think that you had even the slightest chance when you appealed to the Ninth Circuit claiming that subjecting you to a lifetime of supervised release was "cruel and unusual" punishment? Seriously?
Not a chance. Not even if Judge O'Scannlain hadn't been the one writing the opinion. This sentence not only fails to be "grossly disproportionate," but seems just about entirely right. Indeed, any lesser sentence would raise issues with me. Not this one. At all.