Court Opinion

ID: 9953705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 18:00:47.957513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:27.521560
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10199    Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024   Page: 1 of 18

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10199
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        AYODELE ELIJAH ABOLARINWA,
        a.k.a. Ayodele Oladapo Abolarinwa,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00028-KD-4
USCA11 Case: 23-10199      Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024     Page: 2 of 18

        2                      Opinion of the Court                23-10199

                             ____________________

        Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Ayodele Elijah Abolarinwa appeals following his conviction
        by a jury for conspiracy to commit wire fraud related to the filing
        of fraudulent unemployment claims. Abolarinwa raises challenges
        to the racial composition of the venire, the government’s use of
        peremptory strikes, and the denial of his request to strike a
        prospective juror for cause. After careful review, we affirm.
                                  I.    Background
               A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Alabama
        charged Abolarinwa, among other co-conspirators, with
        conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by
        filing fraudulent unemployment claims using stolen personal
        identifying information belonging to other individuals.
               Initially, jury selection was set to begin on August 1, 2022,
        but on that day, although counsel for both sides were present,
        Abolarinwa, who was out on bond, was not present because of
        transportation issues with the bus he took from his home in
        Virginia to Alabama. So the district court dismissed the initial jury
        venire and continued the case until September 2022.
               Jury selection and voir dire began on September 6, 2022. The
        forty-seven person venire was randomly generated by a computer
        and composed of individuals who resided within the counties that
        make up the Southern District of Alabama in accordance with the
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1         Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 3 of 18

        23-10199                   Opinion of the Court                                3

        district’s jury plan. See Plan for the Qualiﬁcation and Random Selection
        of Grand and Petit Jurors (August 24, 2009), available at
        https://perma.cc/LXR4-XG94.              Thirty-nine of the venire
        members were white, seven were black, and one was hispanic.
               During voir dire, Abolarinwa, through counsel, stated that,
        while he did not “know when would be the proper time” to raise
        it, he wanted to “put an objection on the record [to] the make-up
        of the jury,” because there were only seven black people in the
        venire, one of whom “either [did not] show [up] or was excused.”
        The district court overruled the objection, concluding that
        Abolarinwa did not “meet [his] burden” and noting that, the “jury
        was picked by a computer, and there [were] . . . four people excused
        prior to coming today,” and the court was unaware of the excused
        jurors’ races. Abolarinwa stated that one of those excused
        individuals was black, but that he did not know why that person
        was excused. The district court then noted that the “panel would
        have been made up of the same people based on the computer’s
        generation” and that the “computer ha[d] been approved by the
        [Judicial Council for the] Eleventh Circuit.” 1

        1 The Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861, “seeks to ensure that

        potential grand and petit jurors are selected at random from a representative
        cross section of the community and that all qualified citizens have the
        opportunity to be considered for service.” United States v. Bearden, 659 F.2d
        590, 593 (5th Cir. 1981). “The Act provides that each district court shall devise
        a written plan, known as a ‘local plan,’ to achieve the twin objectives of
        nondiscrimination and opportunity of service. The plan must be approved by
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1          Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 4 of 18

        4                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10199

                At Abolarinwa’s request, the district court explained to the
        venire that Abolarinwa was not a natural born citizen and that
        “[s]ome of the acts alleged in [the] indictment [were] alleged to
        have been committed by people who are not U.S. citizens.” The
        district court then asked, as requested by Abolarinwa, whether any
        members of the venire had “any opinions about immigration that
        would affect [their] ability to be fair and impartial in this case to the
        defendant who is not a natural-born citizen.” Juror No. 3 indicated
        that he would. Upon further questioning in a sidebar conference,
        Juror No. 3 explained that his answer “depends on whether or not
        it’s legal or illegal immigration.” The district court explained that
        Abolarinwa was “a permanent resident” so it was “legal”
        immigration. Juror No. 3 stated: “Okay. That’s all that matters,
        legal or illegal,” and he confirmed that he would not have any
        problem being fair or impartial to Abolarinwa. As a follow-up
        question, the government then asked Juror No. 3 if he would be
        “able to put aside the fact that [potential witnesses were] here
        illegally and listen to what they say in their testimony and evaluate
        that separately from [his] beliefs.” Juror No. 3 stated “[p]robably
        not.”
              After questioning, Abolarinwa moved to strike Juror No. 3
        for cause based on his “strong . . . opinions” concerning

        the judicial council of the circuit in which the district is located.” Id. at 593–
        94.
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 5 of 18

        23-10199                   Opinion of the Court                               5

        immigrants. 2 The government objected, arguing that Juror No. 3
        stated he could be fair, and although he expressed trouble with
        “believing illegal immigrants,” the government thought it was
        unlikely to call any illegal immigrants at trial. The district court
        denied the strike for cause, noting that Juror No. 3 “seem[ed]
        totally fine” with legal immigrants and Abolarinwa “is legal.”
        Ultimately, Juror No. 3 was not seated on the jury.
               The parties then addressed peremptory strikes. 3 As relevant
        here, the government sought to strike Juror No. 21, a black male.
        The following colloquy then occurred:
                 [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I object to No. 21.
                We are down to two black people in the venire with
                the numbers down to—for the original pool, strike
                pool. No. 21, to my knowledge, didn’t answer any
                questions, and, you know, I believe it would be a
                Batson[4] issue. Like I said, we are down to two out of
                the entire pool with the numbers that we have.

        2 Abolarinwa also moved to strike Juror No. 44 for cause and the government

        agreed. The government separately moved to excuse Juror No. 37 for cause,
        and Abolarinwa had no objection.
        3 It appears from the transcript that the peremptory strikes were not discussed

        on the record unless there was an objection. However, the “strike lists” in the
        record show that the government sought to use peremptory strikes against
        Jurors No. 9 (white), 21 (black), and 28 (white). Abolarinwa sought to strike
        Jurors No. 3, 4, 10, 15, 18, 20, 22, 30, 11, 8, and 33 (all of whom were white).
        4 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024        Page: 6 of 18

        6                         Opinion of the Court                      23-10199

               THE COURT: Of the pool that you’ve been given.

               [Defense Counsel]: Yes, ma’am

               THE COURT: So –

               [Government Counsel]: Two I want to strike.

               THE COURT: I don’t believe you’ve made your case.
               Would you like to state it for the record.

               [Government Counsel]: 21 is not employed. He has
               never been employed.          He is not collecting
               unemployment insurance.[ ] That’s the same reason
                                           5

               we struck No. 28,[ 6] who is also unemployed, not
               collecting unemployment insurance. In addition,
               with regard to 21, he has a previous arrest for forgery.

               THE COURT: Those are race-neutral reasons. I ﬁnd
               that’s a race-neutral reason.

               [Defense Counsel]: Thank you, Your Honor.

        5 Juror No. 21 indicated on his questionnaire that he was age 45; black;

        currently unemployed; not retired; that he had previously received or applied
        for Social Security benefits; and that he had not been arrested or charged with
        any prior criminal offenses. He left the section asking about his previous
        occupations blank.
        6 Juror No. 28 indicated on his questionnaire that he was age 28; white;

        currently unemployed; not retired; had never applied for any of the specified
        government benefits listed on the questionnaire; and had not been arrested or
        charged with any prior offenses.
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1         Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 7 of 18

        23-10199                   Opinion of the Court                                7

        The court then announced the jury, which consisted of two black
        jurors (Jurors No. 7 and 23), one hispanic juror (Juror No. 5), nine
        white jurors (Jurors No. 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25), and an
        alternate black juror, (Juror No. 34) and one alternate white juror,
        (Juror No. 32).
               Following the trial,7 the jury found Abolarinwa guilty, and
        the district court sentenced him to 46 months’ imprisonment to be
        followed by three years’ supervised release. Abolarinwa appealed.8
                                       II.     Discussion
               Abolarinwa argues that (A) the racial composition of the
        venire violated federal law; (B) the district court erred in overruling
        his Batson objection to the government’s use of a peremptory strike
        against Juror No. 21; and (C) the district court erred in denying his

        7 Because all of Abolarinwa’s challenges to his conviction center on jury

        selection, that underlying facts of the crime and evidence adduced at trial are
        not relevant to this appeal and will not be discussed.
        8 Abolarinwa dedicates a section of his brief to the timeliness of his appeal.

        However, the government agrees that the appeal is timely. Therefore, any
        challenge to the timeliness of the appeal is waived. See United States v. Lopez,
        562 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the deadline for filing a
        notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional but rather is a claims-
        processing rule that may be waived by the government).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024      Page: 8 of 18

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10199

        request to strike Juror No. 3 for cause. We address each argument
        in turn.
                             A. Racial composition of the venire
                Abolarinwa contends that the total population of the five
        counties from which the venire was comprised was 736,371, with
        the black population for those counties totaling 201,174, or 27.3%.
        But he asserts that black venire members made up less than 15% of
        the venire, which equates to a 12.3% disparity and is statistical
        evidence of unlawful racial disparity. Notably, he does not specify
        in his counseled brief whether he is bringing his challenge to the
        composition of the venire under the Sixth Amendment or the Fifth
        Amendment to the Constitution or the Jury Selection and Service
        Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1861—indeed he cites none of these authorities in
        his brief. See United States v. Grisham, 63 F.3d 1074, 1077 (11th Cir.
        1995) (“Challenges to the jury selection process may be based on
        the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment, the
        equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, or a
        substantial failure to comply with the provisions of the [Jury
        Selection and Service] Act.” (internal citations omitted)). Nor did
        he specify in the district court under which of these authorities he
        based his claim. We note that it is the defendant’s responsibility
        to specify the basis for his objection, including on what authority
        the objection is based, so that the district court can have the
        opportunity in the first instance to address the alleged issue and
        correct it to avoid wasting scare judicial resources. See United States
        v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1011 (11th Cir. 2007) (“To preserve an issue
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024         Page: 9 of 18

        23-10199                  Opinion of the Court                                9

        for appeal, one must raise an objection that is sufficient to apprise
        the trial court and the opposing party of the particular grounds
        upon which appellate relief will later be sought. The objection
        must be raised in such clear and simple language that the trial court
        may not misunderstand it.” (quotations and internal citation
        omitted)); United States v. Gallo-Chamorro, 48 F.3d 502, 507 (11th
        Cir. 1995) (“To preserve an issue for appeal, a general objection or
        an objection on other grounds will not suffice.”); United States v.
        Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 612–14 (5th Cir. 1977) 9 (holding that
        defendant forfeited his challenge under the Jury Selection Service
        Act by failing to properly preserve the issue for appeal). Regardless,
        even if Abolarinwa had properly preserved his challenge, he is not
        entitled to relief on any of these grounds.
               “The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution grants every
        criminal defendant the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
        impartial jury. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to
        mean, among other things, that a petit jury venire must represent
        a fair cross section of its community.” United States v. Perez-
        Hernandez, 672 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. 1982) (quotations
        omitted).
                To establish a prima facie violation of the fair
                cross-section requirement, a defendant must show:

        9 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)

        (holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior
        to the close of business on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the
        Eleventh Circuit).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199        Document: 46-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024        Page: 10 of 18

        10                        Opinion of the Court                      23-10199

               (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a
               distinctive group in the community, (2) that
               representation of the group in venires is not fair and
               reasonable in relation to the number of such persons
               in the community, and (3) that the
               underrepresentation is due to systemic exclusion of
               the group in the jury-selection process.
        United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2017)
        (quotations omitted). 10 Importantly, when a defendant fails to
        establish any one of these three elements, his claim under the Sixth
        Amendment fails. United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 649 (11th Cir.
        1984).
               Abolarinwa has failed to satisfy the third element which
        requires him to show that the jury “selection procedure . . . is
        susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral . . . .” Castaneda v.
        Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494 (1977); Gibson v. Zant, 705 F.2d 1543, 1546

        10 For purposes of the second element, we determine whether a given race

        was fairly and reasonably represented in the venire by “compar[ing] the
        difference between the percentage of [the relevant distinctive racial group] in
        the population eligible for jury service and the percentage of [that group] in
        the [jury] pool.” Davis, 854 F.3d at 1295. “[I]f the absolute disparity between
        these two percentages is ten percent or less, the second element is not
        satisfied.” Id. Here, the parties dispute the relevant statistics. Abolarinwa
        argues that when the relevant black population is compared with the number
        of black venire members, the disparity is 12.3 percent. Meanwhile, the
        government argues that Abolarinwa’s statistical analysis is flawed and that the
        disparity between the relevant population and the number of black venire
        members was only 10%, meaning that Abolarinwa’s claim fails as a matter of
        law. We need not resolve this dispute because, as we discuss further in this
        opinion, Abolarinwa cannot satisfy the third element.
USCA11 Case: 23-10199     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024    Page: 11 of 18

        23-10199               Opinion of the Court                       11

        (11th Cir. 1983) (same). There is no suggestion—either in his brief
        or before the district court—that the Southern District of
        Alabama’s Jury Plan, which uses a computer generated
        randomized process to generate the venire, was not racially neutral
        or was susceptible to abuse as a tool of discrimination. Rather,
        Abolarinwa states simply that the alleged 12.3% racial disparity in
        this case “cannot be waved off by pointing to a computer
        program.” That assertion is not sufficient to meet Abolarinwa’s
        burden of pointing to evidence tending to show that the “selection
        procedure . . . is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral.”
        Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 494; see also Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314,
        332–33 (2010) (emphasizing that the defendant bears the burden to
        prove the third element as part of the prima facie case and generally
        must point to more than statistical evidence tending to show a
        disparity).
               Abolarinwa’s claim fails under the Fifth Amendment for the
        same reason.
              To establish an equal protection violation in the jury
              selection context, the defendant must show (1) that he
              or she is a member of a group capable of being
              singled out for discriminatory treatment; (2) that
              members of this group were substantially
              underrepresented on the venire; and (3) that the
              venire was selected under a practice providing an
              opportunity for discrimination.

        Davis, 854 F.3d at 1295. Abolarinwa fails to identify anything about
        the jury selection process that provides an opportunity for
USCA11 Case: 23-10199      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024      Page: 12 of 18

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10199

        discrimination. See id. at 1296 (explaining that to satisfy the third
        element, the defendant must identify something “about the jury
        selection process that could be considered not racially neutral or
        susceptible to abuse as a tool of discrimination” (quotations
        omitted)).
                Finally, Abolarinwa has forfeited any challenge under the
        Jury Selection Service Act because he failed to comply with the
        statutory procedural mechanisms for preserving such a claim. See
        28 U.S.C. § 1867(d) (requiring the defendant to file a written
        motion “containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true,
        would constitute a substantial failure to comply with [the Act]”);
        id. § 1867(e) (providing that “[t]he procedures prescribed by this
        section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of
        a Federal crime . . . may challenge any jury on the ground that such
        jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this
        title”); see also Kennedy, 548 F.2d at 612–14 (holding that, although
        there was a violation of the Jury Selection Service Act, the
        defendant was not entitled to relief because he forfeited the claim
        by making only an oral objection and failing to comply with the
        formal procedural requirements); United States v. Paradies, 98 F.3d
        1266, 1278 (11th Cir. 1996) (“The Act requires that any motion filed
        pursuant thereto be accompanied by a sworn statement of facts
        which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with
        the provisions of [the Act]. When that requirement is not satisfied,
        the challenge to the selection process must fail . . . .” (alteration in
        original) (internal citation and quotations omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199      Document: 46-1       Date Filed: 03/22/2024      Page: 13 of 18

        23-10199                Opinion of the Court                          13

               Accordingly, Abolarinwa is not entitled to relief under the
        Sixth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, or the Jury Selection and
        Service Act.
                                     B. Batson Challenge
               Abolarinwa argues that the government’s use of
        peremptory strikes disproportionately targeted the black venire
        members in violation of Batson. And he maintains that the
        government’s proffered race-neutral reasons were a pretext for
        unlawful discrimination because there were “meaningful
        differences” between the prospective black juror that the
        government struck and the prospective white juror that the
        government asserted it struck for similar reasons. 11
               “The Supreme Court in Batson established the now-familiar
        three-part inquiry for evaluating whether a peremptory strike was
        motivated by racial or ethnic discrimination.” United States v.
        Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015, 1038 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Batson,
        476 U.S. at 79). First, “the district court must determine whether
        the party challenging the peremptory strikes has established a
        prima facie case of discrimination by establishing facts sufficient to
        support an inference of racial discrimination.” Id. (quotations
        omitted). If the challenger has established a prima facie case, “the

        11 The government argues that Abolarinwa has forfeited many of the
        arguments he makes on appeal in support of his Batson claim because they
        extend beyond the legal grounds he presented to the district court. We
        conclude that we need not address this issue because, even considering
        Abolarinwa’s arguments, he is not entitled to relief on his Batson claim.
USCA11 Case: 23-10199      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024      Page: 14 of 18

        14                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10199

        burden then shifts at step two to the striker to articulate a race-
        neutral explanation for the challenged strike.” Id. Finally, at step
        three, the district court must determine whether the striker’s
        “stated reasons were the actual reasons or instead were a pretext
        for discrimination.” Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2241
        (2019). Importantly, “the ultimate burden of persuasion rests with,
        and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” Ochoa-Vasquez,
        428 F.3d at 1038 (quotations omitted).
               Step two under Batson merely requires an explanation for
        the strike that is legitimate, reasonably specific, and facially
        nondiscriminatory. United States v. Folk, 754 F.3d 905, 914 (11th Cir.
        2014); United States v. Alston, 895 F.2d 1362, 1366 (11th Cir. 1990).
        The district court must then at step three “assess the plausibility of
        that reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it.” Miller El v.
        Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 252 (2005); Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338
        (2006) (“Third, the court must then determine whether the
        defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful
        discrimination.      This final step involves evaluating the
        persuasiveness of the justification proffered by the prosecutor.”
        (internal citation omitted) (quotations omitted)). In other words,
        at the third step, “the decisive question will be whether counsel's
        race-neutral explanation . . . should be believed. This is a pure issue
        of fact, subject to review under a deferential standard . . . [and]
        peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.” McNair v. Campbell, 416
        F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original) (internal
        citation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024    Page: 15 of 18

        23-10199               Opinion of the Court                       15

                “When reviewing the district court’s ruling on Batson
        challenges, the court's determination is entitled to great deference,
        and must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” United States
        v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotations
        omitted); see also Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2244 (emphasizing review of
        the trial court’s factual determinations on a Batson claim is “highly
        deferential” and the “trial court’s ruling on the issue of
        discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly
        erroneous” (quotations omitted)).
                Here, it appears that the district court assumed that
        Abolarinwa had made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination
        at step one because upon Abolarinwa’s objection to the striking of
        Juror No. 21, the court invited the government to state its reasons
        for striking Juror No. 21. The government explained that it struck
        Juror No. 21 because he was unemployed, had never had a job, and
        was not collecting unemployment benefits, which were the same
        reasons that the government struck a white juror (No. 28). The
        government also asserted that Juror No. 21 had a prior arrest for
        forgery. The district court then concluded that these were
        legitimate, race-neutral reasons.
               Abolarinwa has not shown that the district court’s decision
        was clearly erroneous.        Although he quarrels with the
        government’s statement that Juror No. 21 never worked—
        highlighting that the juror did not affirmatively state that he had
        never worked, but instead simply left the prior employer section of
        his questionnaire blank—it was not unreasonable for the
USCA11 Case: 23-10199         Document: 46-1          Date Filed: 03/22/2024          Page: 16 of 18

        16                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10199

        government to conclude based on the blank prior employment
        section that Juror No. 21 had not worked before. Nor was it clearly
        erroneous for the district court to accept this reason as a legitimate
        non-pretextual reason for striking Juror No. 21 given that the case
        was about unemployment benefits.12 Robertson, 736 F.3d at 1324;
        United States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Once
        past the prima facie step, the district court’s determination
        concerning the actual motivation behind each challenged strike

        12 With regard to the government’s second proffered reason for the strike, for

        the first time on appeal, Abolarinwa points out that the “Government also
        incorrectly stated that” Juror No. 21 had a prior criminal arrest, pointing to the
        jury questionnaire where he indicated that he had never been arrested. To the
        extent that Abolarinwa contends that this incorrect statement constitutes
        evidence that the government’s proffered reasons were pretextual, we
        disagree. First, we note that Abolarinwa never raised this objection in the
        district court, which would have afforded the government an opportunity to
        explain on what information it based this statement or otherwise correct the
        record. Second, while the court may have erred in crediting the prior criminal
        arrest record reason, ultimately there is nothing in the record suggesting that
        the true reason for striking Juror No. 21 was race, especially given the validity
        of the government’s unemployment-based reason. And there was no
        evidence that the government exercised a pattern of peremptory strikes
        against black venire members—it used only three of its six peremptory strikes
        to strike two white jurors and one black juror. Furthermore, a total of three
        black jurors were empaneled on the fourteen person jury, although one served
        as an alternate. Thus, there is no evidence that the government unlawfully
        struck jurors based on race. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991)
        (explaining when evaluating a Batson claim that “[d]iscriminatory purpose . . .
        implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.
        It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected . . . a particular course of action
        at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an
        identifiable group.” (ellipses in original) (quotations omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 23-10199        Document: 46-1        Date Filed: 03/22/2024        Page: 17 of 18

        23-10199                  Opinion of the Court                              17

        amounts to pure factfinding, and we will reverse only if the
        decision is clearly erroneous.”).
                        C. Denial of request to strike Juror No. 3 for cause
               Abolarinwa argues that the district court erred in denying
        his request to strike Juror No. 3 for cause based on Juror No. 3’s
        expressed views on immigration.
               We review a district court’s decision whether to excuse a
        prospective juror for cause for an abuse of discretion. 13 United
        States v. Pendergrass, 995 F.3d 858, 871 (11th Cir. 2021). “[T]he
        abuse of discretion standard allows a range of choice for the district
        court, so long as that choice does not constitute a clear error of
        judgment.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.
        2004) (en banc) (quotations omitted). “We have recognized that
        there are few aspects of a jury trial where we would be less inclined
        to disturb a trial judge’s exercise of discretion than in ruling on

        13 The government argues that we should review this claim for plain error

        because on appeal Abolarinwa asserts for the first time that Juror No. 3 should
        have been struck for cause based on his views “towards illegal immigrants”
        because it was unclear whether Juror No. 3 “would conclude that
        [Abolarinwa’s] circumstances (marrying an American only for her to divorce
        him a few years later) made [Abolarinwa] ‘illegal’ in [Juror No. 3’s] eyes.”
        While we agree that Abolarinwa did not make this exact cause argument
        below instead relying on a general concern with Juror No. 3’s “pretty strong”
        opinions concerning illegal immigrants, we need not resolve whether plain
        error should apply to his claim on appeal because he is not entitled to relief
        under the traditional abuse of discretion standard.
USCA11 Case: 23-10199     Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024    Page: 18 of 18

        18                     Opinion of the Court                23-10199

        challenges for cause in empaneling of a jury.” Davis, 854 F.3d at
        1296 (quotations omitted).
                Here, following initial and rehabilitative questioning of
        Juror No. 3, the district court declined to excuse him for cause
        because he confirmed that he could be fair and impartial to
        Abolarinwa. Based on Juror No. 3’s answers to the questioning and
        affirmation that he could be fair and impartial we cannot say the
        district court abused its discretion. Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1259
        (recognizing that “the abuse of discretion standard allows for a
        range of choice” and “there will be occasions in which we affirm
        the district court even though we would have gone the other way
        had it been our call” (quotations omitted)). Moreover, Abolarinwa
        does not argue that he suffered any harm due to the denial of his
        cause challenge—and he would be hard pressed to do so because
        Juror No. 3 was not seated on his jury. Therefore, his claim must
        fail. Davis, 854 F.3d at 1296 (concluding that the defendant’s claim
        failed because, among other reasons, he failed to show “that he
        suffered any harm due to the court’s denial of his for-cause
        challenge).
                                  III.   Conclusion
               For the above reasons, Abolarinwa is not entitled to relief on
        any of his claims. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
              AFFIRMED.