Cook

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Cook argues that his indeterminate life sentence with a mandatory minimum of 25 years, imposed under California’s Three Strikes Law after Cook was convicted of possessing .16 grams of methamphetamine, is grossly disproportionate to his crime in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1 In light of the Supreme *107 Court’s recent decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), we must AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Cook’s petition for habeas corpus.

I.

We must determine under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) whether the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Cook’s sentence was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” See Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1172 (disapproving this circuit’s requirement that federal habeas courts review state court decisions de novo before applying AEDPA’s deferential standard of review). “[I]n this case, the only relevant clearly established law amenable to the ‘contrary to’ or ‘unreasonable application of framework is…