MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Kendal M. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
Clark contends that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor’s use of a PowerPoint slide presentation that *846misrepresented the applicable burden of proof. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor based upon an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (to support federal habeas relief, state court’s application of clearly established federal law must have been “objectively unreasonable”); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (in prosecutorial misconduct context, the relevant question is whether “the prosecutor[’s] comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make.the resulting conviction a denial of due process” (internal quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.