Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that lineup in which he was participant was unduly suggestive because participants were grossly dissimilar in appearance. Defendant procedurally defaulted said claim by failing to preserve instant stand alone due process claim in Dist. Ct., and further failed to raise said issue in his state court review proceedings. Fact that defendant used evidence of suggestive lineup to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by alleged Brady and Strickland violations did not serve to preserve instant issue for review, and record showed that defendant had otherwise abandoned any Brady or Strickland claim on appeal. Moreover, defendant failed to demonstrate any miscarriage of justice that would excuse his procedural default, where at least one other witness identified defendant as culprit.