T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R V IN B R Y A N T , II I, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. T . F E L K E R , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 15313 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 0 0 5 - CW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C l audi aA . W i l ke n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner M arvi n B ry ant , II I, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 a n da f f i rm. 

# FI LED DE C 27 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15313 2 B ry a n t c o n te n d s th a t th e p r e - tr ia l p h o to id e n tif ic a tio n p r o c e d u r e w a s u n d u ly s u g g e s tiv e a n dta in te dth e w itn e s s ’ in - c o u rt id e n tif ic a tio n . T h e p r e - tr ia l p h o to i dent i fi ca t i on procedure w as no tun du l y s ug gest i ve. M oreover, the i n-court id e n tif ic a tio n w a s s u f

f ic ie n tlyr e liab le . Se e M a n s o n v . B r a th w a ite , 432 U . S . 98, 114 ( 1977) . A c c or di ngl y , the s t a t e c ourt ’ s de ni a l of thi s c l a i m w a s notc ontr a ryt o, ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w a s de t e rm i ne d by th e S u p r e m e C o u rt. See 28 U . S . C . §2 25 4(d)(1); P las c e nc i a v . A lam e i da , 467 F . 3d 11 90 , 11 97 -98 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). B ry a nta l s o c ont e nds tha thi s c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by fa i l i ng t o m ov e t o excl ud e the w i tness ’ pre- tri al or i n-courti dent i fi ca t i on of hi m as bei ng a r es ul tof an i m perm i ss i bl y s ug gest i ve i dent i fi ca t i on procedure. A s s t at ed ab o v e, th e i d en t i fi cat i o n p ro ced u re w as n o tu n d u l y su g g est i v e. A cco rd i n g l y, B ry a ntdi d notde m ons tr a t e ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha tthe r e s ul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er enthad h i s c ou nsel chal l enged the pre-tri al id e n tif ic a tio n p r o c e d u r e . See W i l so n v. H en ry , 1 8 5 F .3 d9 8 6 , 9 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . A cc ordi ng l y, the st at e c ou rt ’ s deni al of thi s c l ai m w as no tcontraryt o, or an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w a s de t e rm i ne d bythe S u p r e m e C o u rt. See P e nr yv . J ohns on , 5 3 2 U .S . 7 8 2 , 7 9 2 - 9 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ; Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7-88 (198 4).1 1 - 1 5 3 1 3 3 B ry a n t’s m o tio n to e x p a n dth e c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ilityis d e n ie d . See Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.