input into the trial defense counsels’ assignments does not plainly or obviously constitute prosecutorial misconduct. See United States v. Tarleton, 47 M.J. 170, 172 (C.A.A.F.1997) (noting that “the absence of controlling precedent favorable to appellant demonstrates that the error, if any, was not plain error”). But importantly, in reaching our decision on Appellant’s prosecu-torial misconduct argument and also his unlawful command influence argument, we rely heavily on the fact that Appellant has not demonstrated any unfairness in the proceedings based on defense counsels’ assignments. See Simpson, 58 M.J. at 373 (noting there is no unlawful command influence claim where there is no evidence of unfairness in the proceedings); United States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1, 6 (C.A.A.F.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209,
holding that prosecutorial misconduct claim reviewed for prejudice holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion