Gower

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Gower appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. *650 § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction for burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 (c), and 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2254 habeas petition, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Gower’s primary contention is that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to file a motion to suppress the pre-trial identifications by two eyewitnesses. Even assuming, as Gower asserts, that the pre-trial identification procedure was suggestive, the record indicates that under the totality of the circumstances, the identifications were reliable and admissible. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972) (establishing five factors for determining the reliability of out-of-court identifications); United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 492 (9th Cir.1985) (“If under the totality of the circumstances the identification is sufficiently reliable, identification testimony may properly be allowed into evidence even if the identification was made pursuant to an unnecessarily…