A California appellate court opinion holding that a sentence of twenty-five to life for petty theft with a prior conviction did not violate the Eighth Amendment was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Ninth Circuit held that the decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63 and Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11 compelled the conclusion that, given his criminal history, defendant’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his offense. The court found Ramirez v. Castro (9th Cir. 2004) 365 F.3d 755 distinguishable due to the specific facts of the case and the defendant’s lengthy criminal history.