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,…

cited Cited "see" United States v. Harry R. Carboni See United States v. Germosen, 139 F.3d 120, 130 (2d Cir.1998) (citing, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1)(A)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 829 , 142 L.Ed.2d 686 (1999).