See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“There is ... no basis for importing the ‘necessity requirement’ announced in [Craig and Coy ] into the much different context of out-of-court declarations _”). I would hold, therefore, that the Nevada Supreme Court’s failure to insist upon alternative procedures for procuring Autumn’s contemporaneous testimony did not involve an unreasonable application of Roberts, Craig, or Coy. Setting aside Bockting’s assertions of legal error, I must decide whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s unavailability finding “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)(2); see also Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Under this deferential standard of review, I
holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs district courts factual findings based on state record documentary evidence and inferences from other facts holding that subsection 2254d2 applies  to situations where petitioner challenges the state courts findings based entirely on the state record holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies holding that the trial courts putting its findings on the record at the conclusion of the states case was sufficient to satisfy  152538 because that section does not specifically limit the time within which the court must state the findings