Case Name: Brendell LEVI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-24
Citations: 120 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 04-15440; D.C. No. CV-00-03506-CW
Parties: Brendell LEVI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Brendell LEVI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-15440.
D.C. No. CV-00-03506-CW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2004.
Decided Jan. 24, 2005.
Shawn Halbert, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Gregory A. Ott, Amy Haddix, Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges raised an inference of racial discrimination sufficient to establish a prima facie case for purposes of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). In addition, the state courts' decisions, finding that appellant failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation stemming from a juror's recollection of the crime scene during deliberations, were neither contrary to nor unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.