Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lee HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 301 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 07-30312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lee HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 678–678

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Lee HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30312.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 24, 2008.
Kevin T. Maloney, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Paul Frampton, Esquire, Hayden Lake, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Steven Lee Howard appeals from his jury-trial conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Howard contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument by injecting personal opinion regarding Howard's testimony, vouching for DNA evidence, and shifting the burden of proof. We conclude that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute misconduct. See United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 701-02 (9th Cir.1995).
Howard also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not pursue an alibi defense. We decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.