Timothy Hugh Hall v. D. G. Adams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY HUGH HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. G. ADAMS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 06-16904
D.C. No. CV-02-01187-DFL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 06-16904
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 infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial
of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (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.

-- 2 of 2 --