What is the standard of review for a prosecutor's comments to which defense counsel objected?

² Without distinguishing the comments to which defense counsel objected from comments to which he did not object, the majority suggests that there may be an intra-circuit conflict on the appropriate standard of review: de novo or abuse of discretion. But the majority concludes the result is the same under either standard and so it does not resolve this issue. However, the case that the majority cites to suggest that such a conflict exists, United States v. Wijegoonaratna , states that "[w]e usually review for abuse of discretion a district court's overruling of an objection to prosecutorial misconduct." 922 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). There, the court noted that the defendant suggested de novo review might apply and cited United States v. Perlaza , 439 F.3d 1149, 1169 n.22 (9th Cir. 2006), where the court reviewed de novo whether a closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Wijegoonaratna , 922 F.3d at 98889. But the court concluded that "Perlaza appears to have mistaken the standard of review" because it cited United States v. Santiago , 46 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 1995), "where we reviewed the court's overruling of the objection to the prosecutor's comments at trial for abuse of discretion. " Wijegoonaratna , 922 F.3d at 989.