Charles McIntosh v. Edward Myers, Superintendent of C.T.F. Attorney General of the State of California

9 F.3d 1552 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles McINTOSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward MYERS, Superintendent of C.T.F.; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 89-55892. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1993. * Decided Nov. 8, 1993. Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles McIntosh, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for voluntary manslaughter. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and review de novo. Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. 1 Identification Testimony 3 McIntosh contends that his due process rights were violated by the state court's admission of eyewitness identification testimony at trial, because the witnesses had previously identified McIntosh in an impermissibly…