specially concurring.

I concur only under compulsion of the Supreme Court decision in Andrade. I believe the sentence is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.

writing separately, dissenting in part.

In good conscience, I can’t vote to go along with the sentence imposed in this case.

MEMORANDUM**

California state prisoner Jeffrey Rico appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his sentence under California’s three-strikes law for petty theft with a prior in violation of California Penal Code § 666. Rico’s contention that his 25-years-to-life sentence is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment is foreclosed by Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-75, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (holding that state court’s affirmance of two consecutive 25-years-to-life sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law), and Ewing v. California, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 1185-90, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding that 25-years-to-life sentence under the California three-strikes law did not ■violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment). The district court therefore properly denied Rico’s petition. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1175.

AFFIRMED.