United States v. 2009-11-24 | 09-30028 | USA V. JOSE ZAMORA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 09-30028
)
Plaintiff – Appellee, ) D.C. No. 2:08-CR-00036-RSL-1
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
JOSE LUCAS ZAMORA, )
)
Defendant – Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 2, 2009**
Seattle, Washington
Before: ALARCÓN, FERNANDEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Lucas Zamora appeals his conviction for conspiracy, possession with
intent to distribute, and distribution of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841,
846. We affirm.
FILED
NOV 24 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 95–97, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1722–23, 90 L.1
Ed. 2d 69 (1986).
See United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F.3d 900, 902 (9th Cir. 1994).2
See Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2004).3
Williams v. Runnels, 432 F.3d 1102, 1107–09 (9th Cir. 2006).4
2
Zamora asserts that his rights under Batson were violated when the1
government exercised a peremptory challenge as to one of the prospective jurors in
the venire. We disagree.
The district court did apply the correct legal standard in determining whether
Zamora had established a prima facie case of discrimination. See Boyd v.
Newland, 467 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, we review the decision
for clear error. See United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914, 919 (9th Cir. 2009);
Tolbert v. Page, 182 F.3d 677, 685 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The district court did
have broad discretion when determining what factors were relevant under the
circumstances, did not impede defense counsel’s explanation of his position, and2 3
properly determined that the circumstances “eroded” the allegations of
discrimination. Thus, the district court did not clearly err when it determined that4
Zamora had not spelled out a prima facie case of discrimination.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --