Bayer

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Randall Nelson (“Nelson”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. We affirm.

Nelson contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney failed to object to numerous instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the state’s closing argument. The Nevada Supreme Court found that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and, hence, there was nothing to which to object. With respect to most of Nelson’s arguments, we find that this conclusion was not objectively unreasonable.

Although Nelson contends the prosecutor made improper arguments to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury, the prosecutor was either summarizing testimony that had previously been admitted into evidence, or properly questioning the credibility of defense witnesses for failure to recall details noted by other witnesses. The prosecutor’s remarks, therefore, were not “wholly irrelevant to any facts or issues in the case,” Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 247 , 63 S.Ct. 561 , 87 L.Ed. 734 (1943), and not improper under clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Likewise, the prosecutor’s exhortations…