
    Timothy Hugh HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.G. ADAMS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 06-16904.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 7, 2010.
    
      Timothy Hugh Hall, Davis, CA, pro se.
    Joseph J. Wiseman, Esq., Law Offices of Joseph J. Wiseman, Davis, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    David Andrew Eldridge, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Timothy Hugh Hall appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hall contends that his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor stated in the jury’s presence that Hall “lied” about his income on a loan application.

The district court correctly determined that the prosecutor’s statement did not “so infeet[] the 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). Further, the state court’s conclusion that any potential prejudice was cured by the trial court’s admonition to the jury was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     