Patterson

*227 MEMORANDUM *

Votie L. Patterson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo, see Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 446 , 157 L.Ed.2d 313 (2003), but we may not grant habeas corpus relief unless we find that the state courts’ adjudication of a defendant’s claims “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) (2000); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Applying this standard, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

It was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law for the California Court of Appeal to find that Patterson’s prosecutor did not improperly comment on Patterson’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The language the prosecutor used during his closing argument was not “manifestly intended or [ ] of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on…