(See Coleman v. Calderon (9th Cir. 2000) 210 F.3d 1047, 1051.) His closing argument exacerbated the prejudicial impact of his improper statements during jury selection by referring dismissively to appellant’s 223 artwork,to testimony of appellant’s mother and cousin, and to the factthat, in essence, appellant had done nothing of import in his life. (See Coleman v. Calderon, supra, 210 F.3d at p. 1051.)