There is no clearly established federal law which requires that sentencing enhancements be considered for purposes of applying the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted in California state court of offenses resulting from the beating of his wife. His appeals in state court were rejected. In federal court, petitioner claimed that his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, together with a great bodily injury enhancement, was a lesser included offense of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, coupled with a deadly weapon enhancement, in violation of double jeopardy. Held: Affirmed. The double jeopardy clause protects a defendant from successive prosecutions or punishments for the same criminal offense. Where two offenses do not survive the “same elements” test, double jeopardy applies. Here the parties agreed that if the sentencing enhancements are considered as elements of the offenses under this test, then petitioner’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon would be an LIO of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, with an enhancement for weapon use. After reviewing the decisions in Sattazahn v. Penn (2003) 537 U.S. 101, Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and Texas v. Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, the court concluded none of the cases relied upon by petitioner established that enhancements must be considered part of the offense for purposes of determining whether double jeopardy applies. Thus, no “clearly established federal law” required the state court to consider sentencing enhancements as an element of the offenses for double jeopardy purposes.