DeFrank

MEMORANDUM *

We review de novo a decision to deny habeas relief. Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm the district court’s decision to deny DeFrank’s habeas corpus petition.

DeFrank’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to prior bad acts evidence fails under both prongs of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). First, once his counsel made a pretrial objection the issue was preserved for appeal. State v. Foster, 296 Or. 174 , 674 P.2d 587, 591-92 (1983). Second, there is no prejudice because DeFrank testified in his defense to about the same information that his counsel failed to object to.

Likewise, DeFrank’s claim that his trial counsel unreasonably and prejudicially failed to object to an inaccurate statement by the prosecutor during closing argument fails. The comment by the prosecutor, while erroneous, was not so outrageous as to mandate an objection from any reasonable trial counsel. Cf. United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1447-48 (9th Cir.1991). Moreover, the instructions commanded the jurors to disregard argument if it differed from their own…