Langster

MEMORANDUM *

John A. Langster appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

(1) Given the standards that we must follow, 1 we cannot hold that the California courts improperly rejected Langster’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to permit a rational juror to find him guilty 2 of felony false imprisonment by the use of menace as that crime is defined in California.

(2) Nor can we say that Langster’s sentencing under California’s Three Strikes Law 4 violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Given the confluence of Langster’s extensive and serious criminal history and the seriousness of the offense in question here, we cannot say that this is one of those exceedingly rare instances where the sentence has run afoul of Eighth Amendment law as clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72-77 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1173-75 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28-31 , 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1189-90 , 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272 , 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1138 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485…