the line into impermissibly stating the prosecutor's belief in the defendant’s guilt, certainly not to the extent that the error is plain and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. We therefore find this argument to be without merit. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5,7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 . Jackson also raises two sentencing arguments to ensure they are preserved for further review, but he properly recognizes that they are foreclosed by our current precedent. Jackson Br. 47-53. 2 . To the extent that Jackson is arguing that he was denied " 7 (3d Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>), with Davis, 726 F.3d at 441 (not listing the
holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding that the admission of rule 404b evidence is proper in a drug case where nine years elapse between the prior conduct and the conduct charged holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal