Ramsey

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gary Thomas Ramsey appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, *208 challenging his conviction for second-degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Ramsey contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel (1) failed to call an expert on the effects of sleep deprivation and exposure to toxic chemicals; (2) failed to challenge an allegedly “adverse” juror; and (3) did not adequately prepare Ramsey for his trial testimony. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Ramsey has failed to demonstrate either deficient performance by counsel or prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Ramsey also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by implying at trial that Ramsey had told his wife and children what to say during their testimony. We conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks did not “so infect[ ] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431…