Ochoa-Ochoa

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Ochoa-Ochoa, an alien, seeks reversal of his conviction of reentry following *296 removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a) as enhanced by 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (b)(1). Ochoa-Ochoa asserts that the district court erred during jury selection in allowing the government to exercise a peremptory strike based on discriminatory criteria in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause. We review a district court’s conclusions regarding discrimination in jury selection for clear error (Tolbert v. Page, 182 F.3d 677 , 680 n. 5 (9th Cir.1999)).

In United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135-36 (9th Cir.2002) we reaffirmed, citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the three-part test to be used in determining whether a prosecutor has unconstitutionally exercised the government’s peremptory strikes:

Rather than engaging in that step-by-step analysis, the district court, following Ochoa-Ochoa’s initiation of a Batson challenge, immediately requested that the government articulate a race-neutral reason for its decision to strike prospective juror Veronica Hinojo (“Hinojo”). In response the prosecutor explained:

We may put to one…