James Ivins v. M. Martel

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant James Allen Ivins appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Our review is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Id. AEDPA restricts federal courts from granting a ha-beas writ to a petitioner in custody after a state court judgment on the merits unless the petitioner can show that the state court’s last reasoned adjudication of the petitioner’s federal claim resulted in a decision that (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). AEDPA review is “highly deferential.” Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (citation omitted).

Ivins, a previously convicted sex offender, was convicted in California state…