With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". California state prisoner Rick Lee Huegerieh appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Huegerieh’s contention that his 25-years-to-life sentence, imposed under California’s Three Strikes law, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Huegerieh also contends that California’s

A: recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous
B: holding that the state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law
C: 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
D: holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences
B.