Case Name: James Bertram THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-09
Citations: 115 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 04-15260
Parties: James Bertram THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
James Bertram THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. CAMBRA, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-15260.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 9, 2004.
James Bertram Thomas, Corcoran, CA, for Petitioner — Appellant.
Harry Joseph Colombo, Esq., AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent — Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California prisoner James Bertram Thomas appeals pro se the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's denial of a § 2254 habeas petition, see Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
Thomas contends that his sentence of life imprisonment without parole for felony murder is disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We disagree. "Outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences have been exceedingly rare." Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 21, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (quoting Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 995-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (upholding sentence of life without parole for a drug possession felony). We also note that the Supreme Court has acknowledged its "precedents in this area have not been a model of clarity." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Therefore, the California Court of Appeal's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
We decline to address any issues not certified in the certificate of appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).
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.