With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980)). 7 . See also Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 45-46 (2d Cir.2001) (discussing the AEDPA standard of review), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 915, 122 S.Ct. 2381, 153 L.Ed.2d 199 (2002). 8 . See also Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 309-310 (2d Cir.2001). 9 . Moxley’s claim is based on clearly established federal law, i.e., Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 10 . See also Overton v. Newton, 295 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2002). 11 . The prosecutor's reason for striking Patterson was the "prospective juror’s lack of significant employment experiences." R & R at 18; Tr. at 306-309. Such a basis is not inappropriate. See United States v. Tucker, 836 F.2d 334, 340 (7th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Moxley failed to offer any evidence that

A: holding that batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant
B: holding that trial courts erroneous refusal to strike juror for cause impaired defendants statutory right to his allotted number of peremptory challenges
C: holding that is not the fact that a jury is all white or all black that violates batson rather it is the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors
D: holding that trial judges determination  that the prosecutors use of peremptory challenges to strike all four africanamerican venirepersons for lack of education and business experience was not pretextual  was not clearly erroneous
D.