22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b2,MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Billy Gene Dodd appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his three strikes sentence for petty theft with a prior. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm. Dodd’s contention that his sentence of 31-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Dodd’s petition. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1175 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4cd,

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Billy Gene Dodd appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his three strikes sentence for petty theft with a prior. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

Dodd’s contention that his sentence of 31-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Dodd’s petition. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1175 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.