Howard

MEMORANDUM **

Jamil Howard appeals the district court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Because Mr. Howard is a state prisoner, we may not disturb his confinement unless the California courts’ resolution of his claims was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or *444 unless their factual findings were unreasonable in light of the evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Applying this standard, we affirm.

Mr. Howard argues that the prosecutor’s closing arguments “so infected [his] trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). To prevail in such a claim, Mr. Howard must show a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury based its verdict on the prosecutor’s misstatements. Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 143-44 , 125 S.Ct. 1432 , 161 L.Ed.2d 334 (2005) (internal citation omitted); Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 , 380-81 & n. 4, 110…