Mckenzie v. Brown

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO McKENZIE, No. 07-56135 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-02404-CJC v. MEMORANDUM * EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2010 ** Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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, 467 U.S. 79 (1986), de novo because the state court’s use of the standard laid out in People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 280 (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 (2005). AFFIRMED. 2 07-56135