Tilton

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-appellant Mikheil Leinweber appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , challenging his jury conviction in California state court for first-degree murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258(a), and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition and review for clear error the district court’s factual findings. Ali v. Hickman, 584 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir.2009). Under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we may grant habeas relief only if (1) a state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law”; or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) — (2). For AEDPA purposes, we look to the state court’s last reasoned decision, which in this case is the California Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming Leinweber’s conviction on direct appeal.

Leinweber contends that, during his state court trial, the prosecutor committed three types of prejudicial misconduct and that the state court’s…