Albert Zarazua v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

988 F.2d 127 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Albert ZARAZUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-55237. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 11, 1993. * Decided Feb. 24, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-89-3692-HLH, Harry L. Hupp, District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Albert Zarazua, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. Zarazua contends that his due process rights were violated because the witness who identified him at trial had previously been shown a suggestive photographic lineup. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1991), and affirm. 3 Zarazua contends that the district court…