Runnels

MEMORANDUM *

DeWayne McGee Richardson appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar *493 with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly denied relief on petitioner’s claim that the in-court identification was conducted in violation of Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). Clearly established Supreme Court law allows identifications taken at impermissibly suggestive photograph lineups to be admitted so long as the identification is reliable. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 105 , 97 S.Ct. 2243 , 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977) (citing Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 , 93 S.Ct. 375 ).

Under Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 , 101 S.Ct. 654 , 66 L.Ed.2d 549 (1981), the determination of whether an identification is reliable is a question that may properly be left for the jury. As the Supreme Court observed, “[ijndeed, as the cases before us demonstrate, the only duty of a jury in cases in which identification evidence has been admitted will often be to assess the reliability of that evidence.” Id. at 347-48 , 101 S.Ct. 654 .…