Hoversten

MEMORANDUM *

Patrick Hoversten appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He asserts that his due process rights were violated by an eyewitness’s in-court identification, which he asserts was rendered unreliable by unduly suggestive identification procedures. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of Hoversten’s habeas petition de novo. See Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). A federal court cannot grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus with regard to any claim that has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court unless the adjudication of the claim “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that 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).

The California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the pre-testimony procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and…