S.Ct. at 3013. Nor is petitioner’s sentence extreme or disproportionate in comparison to other sentences which the Supreme Court has affirmed in face of dispropor-tionality challenges. See Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1002-04, 111 S.Ct. at 2705-06 (affirming a sentence of life without parole for a first offense of possession of 672 grams of cocaine); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 370-71, 375, 102 S.Ct. 703, 703-04, 706, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (rejecting challenge to a 40-year sentence for possession of approximately nine ounces of marijuana); Rummel, 445 U.S. at 265, 100 S.Ct. at 1134 (upholding life sentence under recidivist statute for uttering “no account” check for $100, where two earlier felonies involved theft of less than $129.00). Therefore, the California court Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In Ground Four, petitioner claims that the
holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding holding that felony conviction for which imposition of sentence was stayed could be counted as prior felony conviction under sentencing guidelines holding claim is not cognizable holding that sufficiency challenges are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding