Does the Ninth circuit's affirmance of the denial conflict with this Court's actual reason requirement?

QUESTION PRESENTED Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) requires prosecutors to provide their actual reasons for striking jurors. The prosecutor here provided reasons for her strike at an evidentiary hearing held seven years after trial. Despite reviewing her notes and the voir dire transcript, she had no actual memory from the trial. Instead, she offered an “opinion” for why she struck the juror. The federal district court accepted the opinion and denied Kitlas’s Batson claim. Does the Ninth circuit’s affirmance of the denial conflict with this Court’s actual reason requirement? i