Wallace

MEMORANDUM ***

Ronald Wallace appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Wallace was convicted of felony possession of less than half of a gram of cocaine and sentenced under California’s “three strikes” law to a term of twenty-five years to life. See Cal.Penal Code § 667 (West). Wallace contends that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that the three strikes law is unconstitutionally vague.

I. Eighth Amendment Claim

The California Court of Appeal’s decision holding that Wallace’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment was not “contrary to,” and did not “involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). In analyzing Wallace’s claim under In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 (1972), the state court did not “appl[y] a rule that contradicts the governing law.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Furthermore, the state court did not “confront[ ] a set of facts that are materially…