
    Stephen LOVELY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Andrew JACKSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-2323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    March 24, 2006.
    Stephen Lovely, Detroit, MI, pro se.
    David A. Merchant, II, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Janet A. Van Cleve, Office of the Attorney General Habeas Corpus Division, Lansing, MI, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before BATCHELDER, CLAY, and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Stephen Lovely appeals the district court’s order of September 13, 2004, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on his claims that (1) his conviction was improperly based on an incriminating statement he made to the police as the product of his illegal arrest (2) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his armed robbery and assault convictions and (3) his sentence was so disproportionate as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Lovely v. Jackson, 337 F.Supp.2d 969 (E.D.Mich.2004) (opinion and order denying petition for writ of habeas corpus).

Following our extensive review of the record, all applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court properly denied Lovely’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because issuing a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Lovely’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of the district court’s opinion and order of September 13, 2004.  