Gudino

facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). He challenges the prosecution’s concerns about

Juror 57’s tardiness, lack of maturity and sophistication, and apparent disinterest in

the proceedings. Gudino, however, has not shown that the state court’s

determination that he had not demonstrated purposeful discrimination was based

24-4645 on an unreasonable determination of facts. Juror 57’s tardiness and lack of interest

in the proceedings were sufficient to support the state court’s factual determination

that Juror 57 was struck for race-neutral reasons. See Mikhel, 889 F.3d at 1028

(explaining that, at Batson’s third step, the defendant must show purposeful

discrimination); see also Mitleider v. Hall, 391 F.3d 1039, 1049 (9th Cir. 2004)

(concluding that, unless the defendant establishes pretext, tardiness was sign of

immaturity and is a legitimate reason for challenging a juror); United States v. You,

382 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that “lack[ing] sufficient age and

maturity level,” and lack of “appropriate intellect or sophistication” were “valid

and non-discriminatory” reasons for exercising peremptory challenges).

AFFIRMED.

…