With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". denied the motions, and Boddie-Noell now appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction to hear Boddie-Noell’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993). We address each of Boddie-Noell’s arguments in turn. II. A. Boddie-Noell first requests a new trial on the basis that Richardson used his peremptory challenges to remove only men from the venire in violation of Boddie-Noell’s constitutional rights as recognized in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 130-31, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 881 (4th Cir.1996) (recognizing that Fifth Amendment provides comparable protections in federal court); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 623-27, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because J.E.B. is based on the same logic and

A: holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment
B: holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial
C: holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner
D: holding that private litigants in civil cases may not use peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner
D.