Case Name: Charles Francis RECOTTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 234 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 05-16983
Parties: Charles Francis RECOTTA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Charles Francis RECOTTA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony LAMARQUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-16983.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 13, 2007.
Maitreya Badami, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Charles Francis Recotta, lone, CA, pro se.
Gregory A. Ott, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Francis Recotta appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Recotta contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree. Although Recotta's sentence is harsh, the California court's decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Eighth Amendment law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73-77,123 S.Ct. 1166,155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.