Hargrove

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Aaron Christopher Hargrove appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We review Hargrove’s Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), claim de novo, because the state court’s use of the standard laid out in People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978), does not satisfy constitutional requirements. See Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.2000).

Hargrove failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination with regards to Jl. Hargrove’s claim “that the totality of relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” hinges on a statistical argument involving very small numbers. Batson, 476 U.S. at 94 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . This argument, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case in light of the ample legitimate reasons in the record for the prosecution’s challenge. See Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2002).…