Case Name: Mario PEREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 02-55795; D.C. No. CV-00-13212-CAS
Parties: Mario PEREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 926–926

Head Matter:
Mario PEREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gail LEWIS, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 02-55795.
D.C. No. CV-00-13212-CAS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Verna J. Wefald, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Lawrence M. Daniels, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Donald E. DeNicola, California Attorney General’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
Before KOZINSKI, NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A pre-trial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive only if it gives rise to "a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); see also Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). An identification procedure does not offend due process if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is reliable. See id. at 199-200.
The eyewitness who identified defendant saw him up close in both robberies, recognized him at the second robbery as the man who committed the first and was highly certain in his testimony. Accordingly, the state appellate court's decision that the identification was admissible was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.