Robinson

MEMORANDUM ***

Gregory Robinson appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on five grounds. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs Robinson’s habeas petition because he filed it after the effective date of AEPDA. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 , 117 S.Ct. 2059 , 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). We conclude that Robinson has not shown that his state court adjudication either involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). We therefore affirm.

First, Robinson alleges four instances of improper vouching by the government in closing argument. We do not reach the question whether the government’s comments were improper, because Robinson has not shown that the purported vouching so infected the proceedings with unfairness as make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (citation and internal…