N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL E. FR

ANKLIN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. SC OTT M . KER

NAN, W arde n; e t a l., R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . No. 15-15142 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-00304-KJM M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd HELLER STEIN, * * Se nior Distric t Judge . Pe titione r M i c ha e l Franklin se e ks re ve rsa l of the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion, whic h de nie d Franklin’ s pe tition for a writ ha b e a s c orpus. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED MAR 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Alvin K. He lle rste in, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.First, in light of the C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l’ s a

p plic ation of a

“ strong like lihood”sta

nda rd for e sta

blishing a prim a fa c ie c a se unde r Batson v . K e n tuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986)—a

sta nda rd we have he l d is c le arly c ontra ry to Batson , se e

, e .g. , J ohnson v . Finn , 665 F.3d 1063, 1069 (9th C ir. 2011); W illiams v
. Runne ls , 432 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th C ir. 2006)— t he usua l de fe re nc e owe d a sta te c ourt judgm e nt on the m e rits unde r the Anti-Te rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe n a lty Ac t , 28 U.S.C . § 2254, is ina

pplic a ble . Se c ond, we re

je c t Franklin’ s c ha lle n ge unde r J .E.B. v . Alabama , 511 U.S. 127 (1994), on de

novo re vie wbe c a

use he fa ils to show tha

t “ the fa c ts a

nd a ny othe r re le va

nt c irc um sta

nc e s ra i se an infe re nc e tha t [the prose c utor’ s pe re m

ptory c ha lle nge s we re ] m otiva

t e d by . . . ge nde r.” C

oope rw ood v . C

ambra , 245 F.3d 1042, 1045–46 (9th C ir. 2001) (interna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Tha t the prose c utor did not a

ppre c iate J

. E.B. ’ s a pplic ation, a

nd tha t he use d e i ght of te n pe re m ptory c ha lle nge s a g a inst m e n, doe s not ove rc o m e the following fa c ts: The ve nire wa s 56% m a le to be gin with; two of the prose c utor’ s first thre e c ha lle nge s we re a ga i nst wom e n; the prose c utor a c c e pte d pre d om ina ntly m a le jurie s (se ve n to five and e ight to four) thre e tim e s prior to theultim ate jury (of ninem e n a

nd thre e wom e n) be ing sworn in; the prose c utor fa ile d to usea l l of his pe re m ptory c ha lle nge s; a

nd Franklin’ s tria l c ounse l a dm itte d to purpose fully

e xc luding wome n 2(using te n out of e le ve n pe re m ptory c ha l le nge s a ga inst wom e n), thus inc re a sing the odds tha t m a le jurors (som e of whom the prose c ution would find una c c e pta ble ) would bedrawn out of thepre dom ina ntly m a le ve nire and into the jury box. On the s e fa c t s, Franklin’ s c la im fa i ls. Se eJ

.E.B. , 665 U.S. a

t 129; U nite d State

s v . Stinson , 647 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011); J ohnson , 665 F.3d a

t 1070; W illiams , 432 F.3d a

t 1107; Paulino v . C

astro , 371 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C i r. 2004); F e rnande z v . Roe , 286 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th C ir. 2002); C oope rw ood, 245 F.3d at 1047–48. Fina lly , we de ny

Frank lin’ s m otion to e xpa nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility .

“ [R ] e a sona

ble jurists [would not] find thedistric t c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt of [Franklin’ s unc e rtifie d] c onstitutiona l c la im s de bata

ble or wrong.” Slac k

v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Fra nklin’ s a lle ge d c la im

unde r C h ambe rs v . Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284 (1973), in his sta t e ha be a s pe tition wa s ba

re ly disc e rnible a s suc h, and in a ny e ve nt, Fra

nklin c le arly

fa ile d to e sta

blish a c t ua l pre judic e unde r Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 (1993). AFFIRM E D.

3