Harington

MEMORANDUM *

David A. Harington appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

We may not grant a petitioner habeas relief unless he has demonstrated that the state court adjudication on the merits was contrary to or an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 70—71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 , 402 — 03, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1518 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067-69 (9th Cir. 2003).

(1) Harington first claims that, because he continuously detained his victim, his conviction for two counts of kidnaping violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that there were two abduction episodes and in the second frolic the “risk of further harm to the victim over and above that existing in the [initial] crime” of abduction and assault was present. Stalley v. State, 91 Nev. 671, 675 , 541 P.2d 658, 661…