no more doubt.” (Transcript of state court proceedings, pages 32-33). The witness O’Hara tentatively identified Pilón at the lineup and positively identified him at trial. He had been approximately twenty feet from the robber and had seen him twice, once headed toward the pharmacy and once headed away. The pharmacy customer, Vanderpol, saw the robber briefly and while she did not identify him at the lineup, she identified him in court at the time of trial. Because the record fairly supports the conclusion that the identifications were reliable, the district court correctly denied relief without a hearing even after assuming for the purpose of argument that the encounter at the suppression hearing was suggestive. See United States v. Love, 746 F.2d 477, 478 (9th Cir.1984) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>); Ponce, 735 F.2d at 336 (assuming
holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence recognizing that court may assume suggestiveness arguendo and review reliability 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 experts experience knowledge and training is considered in determining reliability