Adams

MEMORANDUM *

Adams appeals from the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence fol *327 lowing jury trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

I

Adams argues that the photographic array was impermissibly suggestive because his picture has a dark blue background, does not have the Alaska state seal in the background, and was placed first in the array. Adams also suggests that his skin tone is “markedly different” from the skin tone of the other African-American males in the array, and that the Roths selected him because they had read a newspaper article describing the suspect as a “light-skinned black man.”

The pretrial identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive. See United States v. Montgomery, 150 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir.1998) (as amended) (reviewing the constitutionality of pretrial identification procedures de novo). Because Adams’s skin tone is substantially similar to those of the other individuals in the array, there is no suggestion that the newspaper article led the Roths to identify him. The other “insubstantial differences between the defendant’s photograph and the others do not in…