Duong

MEMORANDUM *

Senh Duong appeals from the district court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , see Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

1. The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the comments made by the prosecutor in petitioner’s state court trial did not violate Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), was not a decision that “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established *34 Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; see also Lockyer v. An-drade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-73 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Comment on the inadequacy of the defense in general does not constitute Griffin error. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 595 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). In this case, the prosecutor’s argument as to the lack of an alibi…