Andre Sherman v. Dwight Neven

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRE SHERMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DWIGHT NEVEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15999
D.C. No. 2:05-CV-00362-JCM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
FEB 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15999 2
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 (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.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --