Case Name: Gustavo McKENZIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-16
Citations: 376 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 07-56135
Parties: Gustavo McKENZIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
Gustavo McKENZIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-56135.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 16, 2010.
Gustavo McKenzie, Imperial, CA, pro se. Analee J. Brodie, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Gustavo McKenzie appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
McKenzie contends that his right to a fair and impartial jury was violated when the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse an African-American juror. We review McKenzie's claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), de novo because the state court's use of the standard laid out in People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 280, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978), does not satisfy constitutional requirements. See Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.2000). McKenzie has failed to establish that the totality of relevant facts "gives rise to an inference" of purposeful discrimination by the prosecutor. See Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 168, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.