The reference to a "work of fiction" was neither excessive nor inflammatory and was therefore within the proper bounds of argument. See Peterson, 808 F.2d at 977; Bruce v. United States, No. 04-CV-3453 (NGG), 2006 WL 1704473, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 12, 2006).

The exception to this rule allows reconsideration of the claim if there has been an intervening change in the law, and the new law would have exonerated a defendant had it been in force when the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Chin v. United States, 622 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir. 1980);see also Bruce v. United States, No. 04 CV 3453, 2006 WL 1704473, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2006).

United States v. Peterson, 808 F.2d 969, 977 (2d Cir. 1987); UnitedStates v. Shareef, 190 F.3d 71, 79 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is not ordinarily improper for the prosecution to make temperate use of forms of the word `lie' to highlight evidence directly conflicting with the defense's testimony, or `to characterize disputed testimony' where credibility was clearly an issue, particularly where `the prosecutor tied to the pertinent evidence of record' each instance in which the defendant supposedly `lied'. . . ."); Bruce v. United States, No. 04-cv-3453, 2006 WL 1704473, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 12, 2006) ("[A]lthough it may have been unseemly for the Government to call her a liar, it was not excessive or inflammatory, but rather a permissible way to characterize disputed trial testimony."). Here, the prosecutor permissibly attacked petitioner's credibility, pointing out the faults in his testimony and referring to them as lies.

The exception to this rule allows reconsideration of the claim if there has been an intervening change in the law, and the new law would have exonerated a defendant had it been in force when the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Chin v. United States, 622 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Bruce v. United States, No. 04 CV 3453, 2006 WL 1704473, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2006). Furthermore, courts will not entertain § 2255 claims that were not raised on direct appeal, unless a petitioner can show that there was "cause" for failing to raise the claims earlier and "prejudice" resulting therefrom, or that the petitioner is innocent of the charges.