MEMORANDUM ***

James Like, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 habeas petition. Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them here.

Like challenges his sentence of life without parole for grand larceny auto under *559 Nevada’s habitual criminal act, Nev.Rev. Stat. § 207.010, based on three prior convictions for forgery, attempted grand larceny, and attempted theft, as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Because Like filed his federal habeas petition after April 26, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision affirming Like’s sentence was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 77, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (two consecutive twenty-five-years-to-life sentences under California three-strikes law based on several prior convictions did not violate the Eighth Amendment). 1 Therefore, the district court properly denied habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.