Case Name: Achilles Mason WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. GALAZA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 73 F. App'x 941
Docket Number: No. 01-56449; D.C. No. CV-00-00252-BTM
Parties: Achilles Mason WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G. GALAZA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 941–941

Head Matter:
Achilles Mason WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G. GALAZA, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 01-56449.
D.C. No. CV-00-00252-BTM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2003.
Decided Aug. 20, 2003.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
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.
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.