the district court found sufficient test reliability, crediting Dr. Jeanneret’s composite reliability scores of .82-.83. Again, we find no clear error with the court’s factual findings and no error with its legal conclusion. Plaintiffs briefly mention that the individual components of the 2002 process received poor reliability scores ranging from ,32-.79. Indeed, the relatively low component reliability scores give pause. See Police Officers for Equal Rights, 916 F.2d at 1102 (allowing rank ordering where the exam’s component tests achieved reliability scores ranging from .85-97). Though the district court did not make specific findings regarding component reliability scores, plaintiffs point to no authority requiring such findings to sustain a rank-ordering test. Cf. id. at 1103 (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). “The district judge is
holding that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony holding that fre 702 applies to all offers of expert witness testimony requiring that the trial court determine the reliability and relevance of the offered submissions holding that psychologists testimony on the reliability of eyewitness testimony was both relevant and reliable and thus should have been admitted holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting  expert testimony  on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate holding finding of reliability not clearly erroneous despite lack of prior description