With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his “three strikes” sentence for drug possession as cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm. Le contends his sentence under California’s “three strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the California state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established law in upholding Le’s sentence. See Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1190, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (acknowledging broad discretion possessed by legislatures and holding that three-strikes sentence of 25 years to life for felony grand theft was not grossly disproportionate); Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The district court therefore properly denied

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that 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.