Roberto

facts as her constitutional claim. “The test for a constitutionally selected jury is the

same whether challenged under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution or under

the Jury Selection and Service Act.” Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d at 546 (quoting

Miller, 771 F.2d at 1227)). Thus, her Jury Selection Act claim fails because she

3 did not establish a prima facie fair cross-section violation. See United States v.

Erickson, 75 F.3d 470, 477 (9th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.

1 Even if Roberto had established a constitutional violation, her statutory claim would still fail because she did not comply with the Jury Selection and Service Act’s procedural requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1867(a), (d), (e) (requiring a timely motion accompanied by a sworn statement of facts); United States v. Wellington, 754 F.2d 1457, 1468 (9th Cir. 1985).

4 United States v. Roberto, No. 23-2026 FILED BRESS, Circuit Judge, concurring: FEB 13 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I agree that Roberto has not demonstrated a Sixth Amendment or statutory

violation on this record. That said, I question the basis for the district…