CA1: an ambiguous green light to prosecutorial (mis?)-conduct in state courts

Raposa v. Bissonnette, No. 07-2061 (unpublished) affirms a denial a petition for a habeas writ for reasons I don’t understand where the petitioner alleged “, that the prosecutor's summation violated Raposa's due process rights, as did aspects of the prosecutor's cross-examination and the state court's subsequent admission of allegedly prejudicial evidence” .  Here is the entire operative part:

The district court found that Raposa had exhausted her federal claims below, but that there was no error in the SJC's decision warranting a grant of the writ. We have given Raposa's arguments careful consideration but in the end see no reason to differ with, or add to, either part of the district court's thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion