Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Jonathan Ray Allen appeals his convictions of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2012); nine counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,1951(a); and nine counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). He argues that the district court should have suppressed the out-of-court identifications made by several witnesses and precluded these witnesses from identifying him during trial because the photo arrays impermissibly highlighted him due to variations in the exposure of the photograph and the color of his shirt. After review of the record, we affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusion that the identifications were admissible de novo. United States v. Saunders, 501 F.3d 384, 389 (4th Cir. 2007). “Due process principles prohibit the admission at trial of an out-of-court identification obtained through procedures ‘so impermissi-bly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-identification.’ ” Id. (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)). If the identification procedure was unduly suggestive, the identification is admissible if it “was nevertheless reliable in the context of all of the circumstances.” Id. at 389-90, 88 S.Ct. 967. Where a witness’ out-of-court photo identification is unreliable and inad *282 missible, any in-court identification is also inadmissible. Simmons, 390 U.S. at 383-84, 88 S.Ct. 967; see Saunders, 501 F.3d at 390.

The record supports the district court’s finding that any variation in appearance in the various photo arrays between Allen’s photos and the others was insignificant and did not render the photo arrays themselves unduly suggestive. Moreover, the procedures used by police in displaying the arrays reinforce this conclusion. See United States v. Gray, 491 F.3d 138, 148 (4th Cir. 2007) (holding this court may consider evidence introduced during later proceedings that confirms the correctness of the district court’s findings).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.