Barker

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Bobby Barker appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 *755 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Barker asserts that his due process rights were violated by two out-of-court identifications, which he claims were rendered unreliable by unduly suggestive identification procedures. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

In order to obtain relief on habeas, Barker must demonstrate that the state court’s determination resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or that the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Controlling federal law holds that a pretrial identification violates due process where: (1) the identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, and (2) the suggestive procedure “give[s] rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification.” See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 197 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).

Barker is not entitled to relief because the California Court of Appeal reasonably determined that he failed to meet both parts of this test. The photo lineup…