Case Name: Andre SHERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-17
Citations: 414 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 08-15999
Parties: Andre SHERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 957–958

Head Matter:
Andre SHERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dwight NEVEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15999.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
Andre Sherman, Pioche, NV, pro se.
Brooke Alison Foley Barack, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Offiee of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is’ suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Andre Sherman appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Sherman contends that the state court's denial of his motion to exclude unduly suggestive field and pre-trial in-court identifications violated his constitutional rights. The state court's determination that the challenged identifications were sufficiently reliable was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972).
We construe Sherman's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.