as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” See Johnson v. Bagley, 544 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). We review prosecutorial misconduct claims for abuse of discretion. See White, 563 F.3d at 193-94. Even assuming that the Government’s cross-examination of Mrs. Johnson was improper, any impropriety was not flagrant. Although the statements could initially have misled the jury about Mrs. Johnson’s credibility, the court quickly issued a curative instruction, and nothing about this particular line of questioning suggests that the misimpression it might have created was not effectively cured by the instruction. See United States v. Wilson, 199 Fed.Appx. 495, 498 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d
recognizing that a party that objects to a jury instruction before the jury retires may challenge the instruction on appeal 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 holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review holding that a thirtyminute delay in providing curative instructions to a jury for improper conduct did not result in prejudice against the defendant