cited Cited "see" Eldridge v. Bear See United States v. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1083 , 119 S. Ct. 828 , 142 L.

discussed Cited "see" State v. Veale Thus, declining to appoint counsel solely to vindicate that interest does not offend “fundamental fairness.” Saviano, 151 N.H. at 320 ; see United States v. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181, 1188 (10th Cir. 1998) (rejecting argument that additional or substitute counsel was necessary to *645 satisfy due process where defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation over the client’s wishes), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1083 (1999); State v. Cunningham, 105 P.3d 929, 943 (Or.

discussed Cited "see" Chase v. Berbary In determining whether a defendant has suffered actual prejudice as a result of the prosecutorial misconduct, the reviewing court considers “ ‘the severity of the misconduct; the measures adopted to cure the misconduct; and the certainty of conviction absent the improper statements.’ ” Floyd, 907 F.2d at 355 (quoting United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d at 1181 ); accord, e.g., United States v. Germosen, 139 F.3d, 120 128 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1083 , 119 S.Ct. 829 , 142 L.Ed.2d 686 (1999).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ehab Coriaty The defendant must point to “egregious misconduct.” Id. at 647 ;, 94 S.Ct. 1868 see also United States v. Shareef, 190 F.3d 71, 78 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that prosecutorial misconduct must cause the defendant “substantial prejudice” to warrant reversal); accord United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1183 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1224 , 114 S.Ct. 2717 , 129 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994). “[W]here, as here, the defendant did not object to the remarks at trial, reversal is warranted only where the remarks amounted to a ‘flagrant abuse.’ ” United States v. Germosen, 139 F.3d 120,…