With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". California state prisoner Anthony Wayne Kunkle appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his sentence for evading an officer with reckless driving and possessing narcotics paraphernalia, with four prior felony convictions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm. Kunkle contends that his sentence of 26-years-to-life under California’s three strikes law, California Penal Code section 667, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This contention was recently foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (<HOLDING>), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct.

A: holding that the sixth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts upholding of jury instructions and verdict forms regarding the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors was not contrary to or  an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law citation and internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states
C: holding that a state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
D: holding that the ninth circuit improperly granted habeas relief because the state courts decision that it was not inherently prejudicial when court spectators wore buttons depicting the murder victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
C.