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 RIC HARD NEUM AN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. ALAN M . C R OGAN, C hie f Proba tion Offic e r C ounty of R i ve rside , R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-57013

D.C . No. 5:11-c v-00327-DOC DTB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, TALLM AN, a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M i c ha e l R ic h ard Ne um a n (Ne um an) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition pre m ise d on the prose c utor’ s a l le ge dly

im prope r use of pe re m

p tory c ha lle nge s to e xc lude “ pe ople



# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.of c olor” from the jury in viola t ion of B a tson v . K

e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

n d we a ffirm . Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe n a l ty Ac t, we m

u st de fe r to the s tat e c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the re wa s no purpose ful disc rim ination unle ss its de c i sion wa s: (1) “ c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d Stat e s,” or (2) “ ba se d on a n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se n te d. . . .” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination tha t the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta nc e s fa ile d to ra ise an infe re nc e of disc rim ination wa s not c ontra ry to or an unre a s ona

ble a p plic a tion of c le arly

e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la w, a n d the sta te c ourt did not unre a sona

bly de te rm ine the fa c ts. As thesta te c ourt note d, s e e Pe oplev . N e uman , 176 C a l. App.4th 571, 583-84 (2009), Ne um an’ s c ha lle nge is ba s e d on a sta tistic a l dispa

rity in the prose c utor’ s use of pe re m ptory c ha lle nge s, y e t Ne um an fa ile d to provide suffic i e nt e vide nc e to pe rm i t a sta tistic a l c o m

pa rison. Se e W illiams v . W

oodford , 384 F.3d 567, 584 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining tha t a ha be a s pe titione r ne e de d to “point to more fa c ts tha n the num be r of Afric an-Am e ric ans struc k” to e sta

blish a patte rn of disc rim inatory strike s ). B e c a

use Ne um an fa ile d to produc e suffic ie nt fa c ts to ra ise an infe re nc e of disc rim ination, we ne e d not, a nd do 2not, de c i de whe the r “ pe ople of c olor” is a c ogniz a ble group for the purpose of a Batson ana ly sis. W e a lso disa gre e with Ne um an’ s c onte n tion tha t a re vie wing c ourt m ay

not re vie w the re c ord to disc e rn ra c e -ne utra l re a sons for pe re m ptory c ha lle nge s, re ga rdle s s of whe the r those re a s ons we re proffe re d by the prose c utor. Se e

, e .g., Paulino v . C

astro , 371 F.3d 1083, 1091-92 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [W ] e m ay c o n side r whe the r the re c ord c onta ins e ntire ly pla usible re a s ons, indepe nde nt of ra c e , why a prose c utor m ay h a

ve e xe rc ise d pe re m

ptorie s . . .” ) (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om i tte d). AFFIRM E D .

3