Belei

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Andrei Belei seeks review of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. He asserts that the district court erred by not finding prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor referred in closing argument to the Menendez brothers, and by not finding ineffective assistance of counsel where Belei’s counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s comment. We are reviewing Belei’s claim for plain error. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1,14 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985).

The prosecutor’s single comment during closing argument — although highly inappropriate — did not deny Belei a fair trial. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 183 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 *814 (1986); United States v. Pruitt, 719 F.2d 975, 978 (9th Cir.1983). Any resulting prejudice was cured when the trial judge instructed the jurors that closing arguments are not evidence. See United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292, 1307 (9th Cir.1984); Pruitt, 719 F.2d at 978 .

Similarly, we cannot conclude that Be-lei’s counsel acted unreasonably by not objecting to the prosecutor’s comment. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).…