
    Isaac GASTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55983.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 2010.
    Filed Dec. 15, 2010.
    Issac Gaston, Correctional Training Facility South Facility, Soledad, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Douglas L. Wilson, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Isaac Gaston (Gaston) challenges the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition premised on the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude African-American jurors from Gaston’s state court trial.

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the prosecutor was willing to accept an African-American juror, and used peremptory challenges to exclude two African-American prospective jurors based on one prospective juror’s demeanor and the other prospective juror’s responses to questions regarding his views of law enforcement was not unreasonable. See Cook v. LaMarque, 598 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.2010) (“[W]e must defer to the [California Court of Appeal’s] conclusion that there was no discrimination unless that finding was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”) (citation, footnote reference, and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir.2006) (“To accept a prosecutor’s stated nonracial reasons, the court need not agree with them. The question is not whether the stated reason represents a sound strategic judgment, but whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Gaston’s proffered comparative juror analysis does not establish that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was unreasonable. See Cook, 593 F.3d at 817.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     