Case ID: f-appx_52/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony SAMPSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Carl LARSON, Warden, et al., Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 01-56473.
    D.C. No. CV-99-03015-WDK.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2002.
    Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Anthony Sampson, serving a 39-year to life sentence for second degree murder, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002), and affirm.

Sampson contends that he was denied due process when the prosecutor, in closing argument, improperly used the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of a document to vouch for the reliability of a witness’ testimony. This contention lacks merit. The state courts did not clearly err in finding that, while the comment was inappropriate, the judge’s admonition and jury instructions neutralized the comment so it did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181-82, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986); Drayden v. White, 232 F.3d 704, 713-14 (9th Cir.2000) (applying pre-AEDPA standard); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149-50 (9th Cir.2000) (describing AEDPA standard). The district court properly denied the habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (limiting habeas relief to petitioners in custody in violation of the Constitution).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We reject the government’s argument that Sampson’s contention is procedurally barred. See Melendez v. Pliler, 288 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (9th Cir.2002) (discussing California's contemporaneous objection rule).