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:T4dc,MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Achilles Mason Williams appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. Williams contends that his 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment. This contention is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that California 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, 538 U.S. 11 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Williams’ petition. AFFIRMED. 1 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. . All pending motions are denied.24:T4fc,

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Achilles Mason Williams appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

Williams contends that his 25-years-to-life sentence for petty theft with a prior is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment. This contention is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that California 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, 538 U.S. 11 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that a 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not violate the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Williams’ petition.

AFFIRMED. 1

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.

. All pending motions are denied.