he prosecutorial comments at is- sue in the instant case do not dif- fer in substance from the com- ments that the Supreme Court found acceptable in Boyde. See, e.g., 494 U.S. at 385, 110 S.Ct. 1190 (noting that the prosecutor had "argued to the jury that the mitigating evidence did not 'suggest

ime is less serious or that the gravity of the crime is any less' and that Injothing I have heard lessens the seriousness of this crime' (quoting Boyde trial record). In sum they do not see the prosec- utor's observations about the lack of nexus between Fell's mitigating evidence and Fell's crime