Castro

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Phu Van Huynh appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Two issues have been certified for appeal: (1) Whether the prosecutor engaged in impermissible vouching during closing arguments; and (2) whether Appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the alleged impermissible vouching at closing argument. Appellant has also briefed several uncertified issues.

We have reviewed the district court’s decision to deny the habeas petition de novo, seeking to determine whether the state court’s adjudication on the merits resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Arnold, v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859, 862 (9th Cir.2005); Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 981-82 (9th Cir.2000).

We find that none of the statements placed “the prestige of the government behind a witness,” United States v. Leon-Reyes, 177 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1993)), in a manner that “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v.…