procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal. After reviewing the issues on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court in its thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion and order addressing the pre-trial identification issue, Lockhart v. Brown, No. 9:05-cv-1166, 2008 WL 2397609, at *4-7 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2008). The state trial court and the Appellate Division decisions with respect to the issues of witness identification presented by this case were not “contrary to,” nor did they “involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Dunlap v. Burge, 583 F.3d 160, 165-66 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
recognizing that where the juvenile code sets forth specific procedures governing termination actions those procedures apply to the exclusion of the rules of civil procedure recognizing that the interaction of general constitutional rules governing pretrial identification procedures and the deferential standard of habeas review affords significant discretion to the state court holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion recognizing the rock solid basis for such a deferential standard of review