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.