Hall v. Adams

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 07 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY HUGH HALL, No. 06-16904 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-02-01187-DFL v. MEMORANDUM * D. G. ADAMS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Timothy Hugh Hall appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). AH/Research Hall contends that his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor stated in the jury’s presence that Hall “lied” about his income on a loan application. The district court correctly determined that the prosecutor’s statement did not “so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). Further, the state court’s conclusion that any potential prejudice was cured by the trial court’s admonition to the jury was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). AFFIRMED. AH/Research 06-16904