
    James Lee LIKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-17571.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2011.
    John C. Lambrose, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jared M. Frost, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and PALLMEYER, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Like, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 habeas petition. Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2008). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them here.

Like challenges his sentence of life without parole for grand larceny auto under Nevada’s habitual criminal act, Nev.Rev. Stat. § 207.010, based on three prior convictions for forgery, attempted grand larceny, and attempted theft, as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Because Like filed his federal habeas petition after April 26, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision affirming Like’s sentence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (two consecutive twenty-five-years-to-life sentences under California three-strikes law based on several prior convictions did not violate the Eighth Amendment). Therefore, the district court properly denied habeas relief.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Like argues that his sentence differs from that in Andrade because he lacks the possibility of parole. We are not persuaded that the availability of parole in other situations requires a different result here.
     
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     