F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

M AR I O A L EMAN , Petitioner-Appellant ,

v.
D OMI NGO U RI BE , J R ., Warden, Appellee -Responde nt

. No. 09-55837
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-04687- JSL -R Z

RAYMOND M AL DONADO , Petitioner-Appellant ,

v.
G R EG L E W IS , Warden, Ac ting Warden, Respondent-

Appellee

. No. 09-56191

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-06606- JSL -R Z

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ce ntr a l D istri c t of

Ca lif or nia J . Spencer

L etts, Senior District J udg e, Presiding Argued and Submitted Ma rc h 7 , 2 01 3—Pa sa de na , Ca lif or nia Filed June 14, 2013A L EMAN V

. U RI BE

2

T he H o no rabl e M ar k L. W ol f , Se n i or D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e U

. S. * D i st ri ct C o urt f

o r t he D i st ri ct of M ass achuset t s, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Be fore : Kim McL ane War dlaw and Rona ld M. Gould, Circuit J udg es, and Ma

rk L . Wolf, S enior District Judge. * Op ini on by Judg e Go uld

SUMMAR

Y **

Hab e as Co r pus
Affir ming the district c ourt’s denia l of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 hab ea s corpus petition raising a c halleng e under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the panel held that a state c ourt does notviolate a de fenda nt’s constitutional rights by denying
a Batson motion based on a prosec utor’s cr edible explanation t h at he or she made an honest mistake in e x erc ising a pere mptory

challeng e to dismiss t he wr ongjuror.

CO UN SEL
J an B . Norman ( argued), L os Ang eles, California , for Petitioner-Appellant Ma

rio Aleman.
Fa y Arfa (ar gued), F ay

Arfa , A L aw C o rp o ration, L os Ang eles, California , for Petitioner-A ppell ant Ray

mond Maldonado.A L EMAN V

. U RI BE 3

So m e m igh t u se t he t erm Lati no / a, but b ecause t he st at e co urt 1 t hr ough out i t s r eas oni ng us ed t he t er m H i s pani c, we f ol l ow t hat approach i n t hi s o p i ni o n. Mic h a e l R

. Jo hn s o n( ar gu e d ) , D e p uty A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; Ka ma la D. Ha rris, Atto rn e y

Ge ne ra l of

Ca lif or nia ; D ane R. Gi lle tte , Ch ie f As sis tant Att or ne y Ge ne ra l; L anc e E. Wint e rs , Senior Assistant Attorney Gene ral, L os Ang eles, California , fo r R e sp on de nts -A

pp e lle e s.

OP IN ION
GOULD, Circuit J udg e:
Mari o Ale man an d Ray

mon d Mal do na do , a

pp e a l se pa

rate district court dec isions denying the ir 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions. They

both alleg e tha t their convictions wer e secur ed in violation of Batso n v. Kentuck y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). We c onsolidated these case s for oral argum en tand dispositi on beca

use Alema

n and Maldona do ch all eng e the
same voir direp r o c e e d in gc o n d

u c te d b e f o r e th e ir jo int t r ia l was he ld in the Superior Court for the County of L os Ang eles. B oth contend that the tria l court er red by acc epting
as cr edible and rac e-ne utral t he prosecutor’s ex planation for his us e of a pe re mpt or

y c ha lle ng e to dis miss a H is pa nic 1 ju ror. They

contend that the pr osecutor’ s challeng e wa s m o t i v ated by

rac ial bias. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. §§ 12 91 and

22 53 , a nd we a ff ir m.
I
On J uly 4, 2000, Aleman, Maldonado, and a third
ac co mp l i ce , al l m emb er s o f t h e T o o n erv i l l e s tre et gan g,A L EMAN V

. U RI BE

4

ro bb e d a m anatgunp o i n tan d

t o o k h i s w a l l e t

an d g old neckla ce. LAPD Offic ers Thoma s Bakerand Carlos L ang aric a re ceive d a ra dio report of the rob b er y

and immediately saw and beg an following the suspects’ gray Honda. A high- speed car -cha se ensue d, leadingthe offic ers into Toonerville stree t-g ang territory

. When they rea ched the hear t of Tooner

ville territory , the offic ers e ncount ered a washing m ac hine in the middle of the roa d. The off icer s fe are d ambu sh

. Th e y we re ri g ht. As the c ars slo we d to avo id the washing machine, someone threw a bicycle in fr ont of the patrol ca r. The office rs swerve d to a void the bicycle. The n, while the off

icer s were thus diverted and slowed, a sniper started to shoot at them. The su s p ects also fired at the office rs from the Honda. The office rs called f or bac kup and tried to speed a

way
. The suspects blocked their esca pe. The office rs re turned fir e. When the gunfire c ease d, the offic ers arr ested Maldona do and the third accomplice . Aleman wa s caught fleeingthe sce ne.
Maldonado a

nd Aleman wer e eac h convicted by jury trial on two counts of attempted f irst-degree m u rd erof a pe ace office r and one count of sec ond-degree rob b er y
. The jury found that these c rimes had be en com mitted to further g ang activity

. Maldonado and Aleman we re e ach se ntence d to two
consec utive life terms for

attempted murde r and five year s for
ro bb e ry , p lus va

ri ou s g angand

we a po n e nh anc e me nts

. This appea l conce rns the jury selec tio n proce ss for Ap p el l an t s ’ j o i n ttri al

. Du ri n g v oir dire , the prosec utor exercised f

our of his first five pere mptory challe n ges on Hi sp anic jur or s. W hen

the pr os e c uto r d ism iss e d a fo ur th Hispanic juror, defe nse counsel objected, a ssertinga BatsonA L EMAN V

. U RI BE 5

D ef ense counsel ob ject ed unde r Pe op l e v

. Wheel er , 5 8 3 P. 2d 748 2 ( 1978) , t h e Cal i f

or n i a an al og t o Bats on
. See Cook v. LaM ar que , 593 F. 3d 81 0, 813 ( 9t h Ci r
. 201 0). B eca us e “ a W heel er mo t i o n s er ves as an im p licit Bats on obj ec t i on , ” i t wa s s u f f i ci en t t o pr es er v e Al ema n and M a ld o n a d o ’s co n st itutio n a l cla im s. C ri t t en d en v. A ye rs , 624 F. 3d 943, 9 5 1 n. 2 (9t h C i r. 20 1 0 ). violation. The tr ial court found that the defe nse had

2 established a prima fac ie ca se of p u rposef ul discrimination under Batson and a s ked the pr osecutor to e x plain why he
remove d eac h Hispanic juror

. Appellants cha lleng e the pr osecutor’ s rea son for e x cusing one of th e f

o ur ju r o r s

—Jur o r

A c e v e d o
. T h e p r o s e c utor explained that he dismis s ed J uror Ac evedo ba sed on her statement that she was too “ prissy” to be a police office r. To him, this sug g ested that J uror Ace vedo mig ht be too sensitive for the violent de tails of the ca se. He explained that he pref err ed older , more e x perie nced jur ors, and t hat he pr e fe rr e d th e tw o p ro sp e c tiv e jur or s n e xt in l ine fo r t he pa ne l. The prose cutor g ave similar r easons f or excu s i n gthe three other Hispanic jurors, explaining that he was c oncer ned about youth, se ns itivity , la c k o f l if e e xpe ri e nc e , a

nd bia s a g a ins t police.
After a rec ess, the trial court de nied the Batson challeng e. Wit h reg ard to Juror Ace vedo, the tria l cou rt explained that the “pr issy ” comment wa s “not the strong est excuse,” but conclude d that it was a valid, rac e-ne utral j ustification based
on the tr ia l c ourt ’s ob se rv atio n o f t he pr os e c uto r’ s c re dib ili ty and the pr osecutor’ s acc eptanc e of the jury panel se vera l tim e s w ithHi sp anic me mbe rs
.A L EMAN V

. U RI BE

6
The ne x t morning, the trial court onc e ag ain addr essed the Batson motion. The trial judge had see n upon an indepe ndent revie w of the rec ord t hat another venire person, a nd not J uror Ace vedo, had ma de the “ prissy” comment. The trial court asked the prosec utor to ex p l ai n the discre pancy and to g ive
an y other justification for excusing Juror Ace vedo. The p ro s ec ut o r r es p o n d e d t h ath e h adb ee ni l l d uri n g v oir

dire , which af fec ted his memory

and ca used him to take def

icient notes. He c onclud ed that he must have c onfused Juror Ace vedo with the juror who made the “pr issy ” comment be c a us e th ey were sittin gne ar e a c h o the r a nd , to him , b oth
seeme d too sensitive for the case
. The trial court c oncluded that the prosec utor’s exclusion of J uror Ac eve do was ba sed on an “hone st mist ake” and not on ra cial bias. In explaining this conclusion, the trial court r eiterated that the prose cutor ha d a c c e pte d th e jur

y se ve ra l tim e s w ithHi sp anic me mbe rs
. On di rec t appea l, the California Court of A ppeal a ffirme d Aleman a

nd Maldonado’s c onvictions. After a detailed revie w of the f

acts, the Court of A

ppeal co n cl uded that the tr ia l c o urt d id n o t a

b u s e it s d is c r e ti o n in d e nyin gthe Def endants’ B atson motion and upheld the trial cour t’s Batson ru l i n g.
Aleman f iled his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 P et i t i o n for Writ of Habe as Corpus in the United States District C o u rt fo r the Easter n District of C alifornia on July 27, 2006, claimingthat his constituti onal rights w ere violated bec ause the prosec utor re mov e d Jur or Ac e ve do ba se d on ra c ia l bia s. Th e ma g istra te jud g e c on c lud e d th at th e state c ourt s’ de c isi on s did no t r e su lt from an unr ea sonable a pplication of Supreme Court prec edent or an unre asonable deter mination of the fac ts. The district court ac cepte d t his reasoningand denie d Aleman’ sA L EMAN V

. U RI BE 7

O n ap p eal , M al d o nad o al so rai sed t he uncert i f i ed i ss ue o f

whet her t he 3 t ri al co urt de ni ed hi s co nst i t ut i o nal ri ght to p res ent a de f ense by excl ud i ng e v id e n c e o f O ff

ic e r L a n g a ric a ’s us e o f f o rc e in o the r situ a tio n s. W e d ec l i ne t o ex p an d o ur sco p e o f rev i ew to i n c lu d e this i ssue b ec au se M a ld o nad o has no t m et hi s b urden o f s ho wi ng t hat “ reasonab l e jurists
w ou l d f i n d t h e di s t r i c t c ou r t ’ s a s s e s s me n t of t h e c on s t i t u t i on a l c l a i ms debat abl e or wr ong. ” Sl ack v. M cD an i el , 52 9 U

. S. 47 3 , 48 4 (20 0 0 ). § 2254 petition. W e gra nted Aleman a

cer tificate of
a pp e a la bil ity on his Batson c la im.
The Ea stern District of Cal ifornia a lso reviewe d Maldonado’s § 2254 Petition, filed on Octobe r 17, 2006. The
same ma g istrate jud g e concl ud e d th at it wa s n ot o bje c tiv e ly
unrea sonable for t h e s tate cour ts to find that the prosecutor dismis s ed Juror Ace vedo base d on an honest mistake. The district co u rtadopted the ma g istrate judg e’s Repor t and Recommendations and denied Maldona do relief . We then g ra nte d M a ldo na do a

c e rt if ic ate of a pp e a la bil ity on his Batson c la im. 3

II
Both Ale man and Ma ldonado filed their § 2254 Petitions afte r April 24, 1996, so our r evie w i s governe d by the Antiterror ism and Effe ctive De ath Penalty Act of 1996 ( A E DPA). See Crittenden , 6 24 F .3 d at 94 9. AE DPA establishes a “ highly

defe rential standa rd of re view.” Id. Under that standard, w e may

g rant a writ o f habeas cor

pus only if the last rea soned state c ourt dec ision “was contr ary to, or inv olv e d a

n unr e a so nable a

pp lic atio n o f, c le arl y established F eder al law, as deter mined by the Supreme Court of the Un ite d St ate s” or

“ wa s b a se d on an unr e a so na bleA L EMAN V

. U RI BE

8

In hi s b r i ef

t o t hi s co ur t , A l eman ar gu ed t hat t hi s cour t s houl d re vi ew 4 hi s cl ai m de novo be cause t he C al i f o rni a C o u rt o f A p p eal reci t ed t he
erro ne o us “st ro ng l i ke l i ho o d ” st an d ard fo r e st ab l i shing a p rima f ac i e c ase und er Bats on
. S e e Will ia m s v . R u n n e ls , 43 2 F .3d 11 0 2 , 11 0 5 (9t h C i r. 2006) ( “ [ W ] h er e t h e s t at e cou r t u s ed t h e ‘ s t r on g l i k el i h ood’ s t an dar d f or r evi ewi ng a Bats on cl ai m,
. . . our r ev i ew i s de novo. ”)

. B ut at ora l
a rg u m e n t, A le m a n ’s co u n se l co n c e d e d tha t t h is w a s a lo sin g a rg u m e n t. W e a g re e . T h is c a se c o n c e rn s the C a lif o rn ia C o u rt o f A p p e a l’s
a p p lica tio n o f Bats on ’ s t h i r d s t e p. W h e t h e r Al e ma n e s t a bl i s h e d a pr i ma f ac i e cas e of

di s cr i mi n at i on i s n ot a t i s s u e. An d e v en i f t h e Cour t of Appea l c on s i der ed t he erroneous pr i ma f ac i e s t an dar d i n i t s r ev i ew of A l em an’ s cl ai m , a ny e rr o r wo ul d b e harmles s b ecause ap p l i cat i o n of t he hei gh t ene d “ s t r ong l i kel i hood ” s t andar d at st ep one woul d onl y s t r eng t hen A l eman’ s cl ai m o f

pur po s ef

ul di s cr i mi nat i on at s t ep t hr ee.

A pri m a f

aci e case i s est ab l i shed i f t he d ef end ant s ho ws t hat “ (1) t he 5 p rosp ect i ve jur o r i s a m em b er of a ‘ co gni zab l e r a c ia l gro up , ’ (2) t he deter mi n ati o no f

th e f a c ts in li g h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e nted in the State court proc eeding .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 4

III
This case require s us to resolve a sing le but important quest ion: W hether , under A EDPA’s def ere ntial standard, a state cour

t viol ates a

defe ndant’s constitutional rig hts by d e nyin ga B atson mot ion ba se d o n a

pr os e c uto r’ s c re dib le
e xplanatio n th at he or

sh e ma de an h on e st m ist ake in exercising a peremptory challeng e to dismiss the wrongjuror. We h old that it do e s n ot.
“A Batson challeng e has three steps.” Cook, 593 F.3d at 81 4. At the fi rs t st e p, the de fe nd ant mus t make a pr ima fa c ie
s h o wi n g th at th e pr o s ec ut o r e x er ci s eda p er emp t o ry ch al l en ge based on r ace
. Id

. I f t

he c ourt fi nd s th at a

pr ima fa c ie c a se 5A L EMAN V

. U RI BE 9

p ro se c u to r u se d a p e re m p to ry strik e to r e m o v e th e ju ro r a n d (3 ) th e to ta lit y of t h e ci r cu ms t an ce s r ai s ed a n i n f er en ce t h at t h e s t r i k e wa s on a cc ou n t of
r ace
. ” C r i t t enden , 62 4 F.3d at 95 5 (quo t i ng Bats on , 47 6 U

. S. at 96 ). has bee n made, then ste p two require s the prosec utor to g ive
a ra ce- neutra l rea son for e x erc ising the c halleng e. Id . Under Batson ’s t hird step, the t rial court must determine whe ther the defe ndant has c arr ied his burden to prove that the pr osecutor eng ag ed in “purpose ful discrimination.” Kesse r v . Ca mb ra , 465 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir. 2006) (e n banc) (quotingBatson , 476 U.S. at 98). T o make this deter mination, the trial court must “evaluate ‘the persua siveness of the justification.’” Id

. (qu o t i n g Purkett v. Elem , 514 U.S. 765, 768 (19 9 5 ) (pe r curiam)). “A lthough the pr osecut o r’ s rea sons for the strike must relate to the case to be tried, the c ourt nee d not believe that ‘ the state d r e a so n r e pr e se nts a so un d s tr ate g ic jud g me nt’ to find the prosec utor’s rationale per suasive; rather, it nee d be convince d only

that the justification ‘should be believe d.’” J am e rso n v . R un ne ls , 713 F.3 d 1 2 18, 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (qu o t i n g Kesser , 465 F.3d at 359).
We h av e rec ently

explained that there is a “ fine distinction between a

prosec utor’s false statement that cr eate s a new basis for a

strike that otherw ise would n o t exi st and a p ro s ec ut o r’ s i n ac cu ra t e s t at em en t th atd o es n o th i n g t o ch an ge the basis for the strike.” Id

. at 1 2 3 2 n .7. A prosec utor’s cr e d ib il it y is un d e r

mi n e d w h e n h e o r s h e o f f e r s an explanation for a pe remptory challeng e that mischar acte rizes a juror’ s testimony

in a manner

compl etely

contra ry to the juror’ s stated belief

s. See id. (citingMiller-El v. Dre tke , 545 U.S. 231, 243–44 (2005) (expl aining that a prose cutor’s g ro ss m isc ha

ra c te ri zat ion

of a jur or ’s sta

nc e on the de ath penalty sug g ested a

n ulterior re ason for excluding that juror). On the other

hand, if a

prosec utor makes a

mistake in g oodA L EMAN V

. U RI BE

10 faith, such as an innoce nt transposition of juror information, thenth at m is ta

k e d o e s n o t s u

p p o rt t h e c o n c lu s io nth at the p ro secutor’ s expl anation is clea rly not cre dible. S

e eid. (c i t i n g Rice v. Collins , 5 46 U. S. 3 33 , 3 40 (2 00 6) ). Th is i s a fac t-based inquiry . To d et er mine if a prose cutor’s mistake undermines his or he r cr edibility , we must consider whether , based on th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e , th e mi s ta

k e in d ic ate s purposef ul discrimination inst ead of innocent er

ror. See Mi tle ide r v . H

all , 391 F.3d 1039 , 1049 (9th Cir. 2004) ( Batson is not violated by

prosec utor’s honest, but mistaken belief a s long a s it is notprete x tual). Afte r all, Batson pr o h ibits purposeful discrimination, not honest, unintentional mistakes. See B atson , 476 U.S. at 98.
It w a s n ot o bje c tively

unre a so na

ble fo r t he Ca lif or nia Cour t of Ap pe a l to a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s Batson rulingon the g round that an honest mistake is not evidence o f r acia l bias. For a prose cutor to eliminate a prospec t i v e juror by pere mptory

strike base d on an honest mistake as to what that j u ro r had said in v oir

direis not the same, for c onstitut ional purp os e s, a s st

ri kin gthe jur or

ba se d o n a

n inte nti on a lly discriminatory

motive. The re cord supports the trial court’s fi nd ingthat th e pr os e c uto r’ s m is take wa s c re dib le , h on e st, an d un i n t en t i o n al

. Du ri n g voir dire , the prosec utor stated
se ve ra l ti me s that he wa s fe e lin gun de r t he we athe r. In f

a c t, when the pr osecutor ini t i all y explained his reasons for excusing Juror Ace vedo, he stated, “I am sorry
. Iam having a har d time a

rticulating my thoughts be cause Iam not fee ling well.” The rec ord also shows that J uror Ac evedo w as sitting
near the juror who ma de the “ prissy” comment, a nd, when asked the same que s t i on about police wor k, J uror Ac evedo said that she would not be a ble to deal wit h t h e p re ssure of po l i c e w o r

k

. G i v e nth e p r o s e c ut o r ’ s i l l n e s s , th e j ur or s’ pr oximi ty to each othe r, and the re lativ e sim ila

ri ty of the irA L EMAN V

. U RI BE 11

comments, it is a permissibl e finding of the trial court to say that the prosec utor innocently transposed the re sponses from the jurors. Such “innoce nt transposition makes little headw ay toward the conclusion t hat t he prosecutor’s ex planation was not clear ly

cre dible.” Rice , 546 U.S. at 340. We must give “ double def ere nce” to the trial cour t’s cre dibilit y

findingwher e that findingwas a ffirmedby the state cour t of appe als. Jame r

son , 713 F.3d at 1234. One level of de fer ence arises from the broad power of a tria l court to assess cr edibility

of the prose cutor’s statements that wer e made in open court. Another level of de fer ence arises f rom the AEDPA c ontextwher e we defe r t o s tate cour t decisions that are not objectively

unrea sonable. See B riggs v. Grounds , 68 2 F .3 d 1 16 5, 11 70 (9 th C ir . 2 01 2) (“ He re our s tand ard is doubly defe rential: unless the s t ate a ppellate c ourt was objectively

unrea sonable in conc luding that a trial court’ s cre dibilit y

deter mination was supported b y substantial evide nc e , w e mus t up ho ld i t.” ). Ap ply ingthi s d ou

ble defe renc e, we cannot sa

y that the C ourt of Appeal’s dec ision, which re lied on the trial cour t’s credibilit y

finding , was objectively

unrea sonable.
There is ample support in the rec o rd fo r t he trial c ourt’s deter mination that the pr osecutor did not ac t with purposeful dis c ri min atio n whe n h e re mov e d Juro r A c e ve do ba se d o n h is mistaken belief that she had said that she wa s too “prissy” for po lic e wo rk . In th e ini tia l Batson proce eding , the prosec utor ex plained that he r emoved Juror Ace vedo bec ause he r “prissy” comment caused him to believe that she wa s sensitive and would have a d i ff i culttime dealingwith the firea rms and violence in the case . Although, as the trial court noted, this was not the s trong est explanation, in the contextof this case it is sufficie nt to show the abse nce of discriminatoryA L EMAN V

. U RI BE

12
intent. See M

itleider , 391 F.3d at 1 0 5 0 (“The prosec utor’s motives, however , must be considere d on the basis of the fac ts set forth in eac h particula r ca se.”)

. Other f actor s re inforce that conclusion: First, the prosec utor’s explanation was re l at ed to the ca se, which inv olv e d v e ry

vio le nt f a c ts, and it w ou ld b e re a so nab le to
c on c lud e that a

se ns iti ve jur or

might h ave a

tou g h ti me dealingwith that violence. Se eid . at 1049 (re cognizi ngthat immaturity

and lack of life experience are leg itimate bases for pere mptory challeng es). Second, as the t rial court noted, the pr os e c uti on a c c e pte d the pa ne l se ve ra l tim e s wi th Hisp anic members. Se eBu rk

s v . B or g , 27 F. 3 d 1424, 1429 (9th Cir. 1994) (c onsideringthe prosecutor’s acce ptance of minorities on the jury

a valid, but not nece ssarily dispositi ve, fa ctor). Third, the trial c ourt conduc ted a t h o ro ug h revie w of the
re c or d an d tw ic e a sse sse d th e pr os e c uto r’ s c re dib ili ty , f ir st duri ng its ini tia l Batson revie w and then when it reope ned the Batson motion. This was not a “rubbe r st amp” de cision by the state trial c ourt. Four th, comparative anal y sis does not sh owthat th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm ination was ob je c tiv e ly
unrea sonable. Appe llants argue th at t h e prose cutor did not challeng e other jurors who ha d less life experienc e than Juror Ac e ve do

. Al tho ugh th e se oth e r j ur or s b e ar s ome sim ila ri ty to Juro r A c e ve do , th e re c or d d oe s n ot s ho w t hat th ey we re so simil ar a s to c ompel the conc lusion that the state court e rre d in c on c lud ingtha

t th e pr os e c uto r d id n ot p ur po sef ull y discriminate. See B urks , 27 F.3d at 1429–30 (sustaining the state cour t ’s decision whe re the objective e vidence of discrimination was re latively weak). In short, t h er e was ample support for

the California trial court’ s decision that the pr os e c uto r m a de an h on e st mist ake and did no t inte nti on a lly dis c ri min ate in jur

y se le c tio n. On thi s pr e mis e , th e Ca lif or nia Court of Appea l decided that the important principle ofA L EMAN V

. U RI BE 13

B atson w a s n o t v io late d

. We c o n c lu d e th at t h is w a s n o t an objectively

unrea sonable a

pplication of Batson

. A c c o r d i n g l y, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s denia l of habe as cor pus relief

. AF F IRMED.