careful composition of the agreed upon statement dampens our concerns, prevented the government counsel from making the kind of self aggrandizing speech we found objectionable in Korey, and helped cure the improper line of questioning. In any event, after a careful review, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Jimenez’s motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (“[A] criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by so doing can it be determined whether the prosecutor’s conduct affected the fairness of the trial.”); United States v. Zehrbach, 47 F.3d 1252, 1267 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1067, 115 S.Ct. 1699,
holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that the district courts curative instructions cured the governments truly improper and unfortunate comments recognizing that a curative instruction may make it highly unlikely that improper comments misled the jury