Ruby

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Ruby appeals the denial of his request for a writ of habeas corpus, renew *290 ing his arguments that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of kidnaping for sexual purposes; and (2) the state court erred by admitting evidence of a prior bad act for the purposes of proving Ruby’s identity and modus operandi. Our review is limited to determining whether the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court case law or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a) and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Sufficiency of Evidence

Due process requires that a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ruby contends there was insufficient evidence presented at his trial to convict him of kidnaping one of his victims for sexual purposes.…