action in response to improper comments usually is sufficient to cure any problems arising from such improper comments....”) (citations omitted). Considering Alcantara’s significant credibility problems, the evidence presented at trial of his illegal presences in the United States, and. the curative instruction given by the trial judge, Alcantara failed to demonstrate that “in the context of the entire trial, it is more probable than not that [the prosecutor’s comment] materially affected the verdict....” Dorsey, 677 F.3d at 954 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Stated another way, any error in vouching for the witnesses was harmless. See id. at 955. Finally, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the requested curative instruction. See Skinner, 667 F.2d at 1310 (<HOLDING>). Our decision in United States v.
holding that the district courts use of limiting instructions and other measures defused any risk of prejudice holding that the district courts curative instructions cured the governments truly improper and unfortunate comments holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court