Did the lower courts violate Petitioner's Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment to Due Process, Equal Protection clause, and U.S. Amendment VI when prosecutor used nine of his ten peremptory challenges against all African American Women, violating Batson and its progeny?

Question Presented a , , Did the lower courts violate Petitioner's Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment ‘ to Due Process, Equa? Protection clause, and U.S.. Amendment VI; when prosecutor used nine. of his ten peremptory. challenges against all African American Women, violating -*Batson' and its progeny? . ‘ (1) _ Proceedings In Court a i State of Maryland v. Benjamin £. Vance Case No. CT12X ; Decided February 2, 2013 ; * Maryland Court of Special Appeals on February 12, 2014 also Vance v. State, *No. 448, Sept. Term 2013; Mandate issued on Apri] 4, 2014 . -* The Maryland Court of Appeals denied certiorari on dune 24, 2014; ' see also Vance v. State, 438.741 + The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, i Dismissed the petition. and declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability ; ; / on May.22, 2020, Civil Action ELH-18-133 , + The United States Court of Appeal for the. Forth Circuit, on Oct. 23, 2020 ; Case No. 20-6970, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and a "remanded to district court for consideration of. the. unresolved claim. Id at 699;.Per Curiam (Dismissed and Remanded); : ; * Stay of Mandate Under fed. R. App. P..41(d)(1).on Nov 5, 2020; , : * Order denying Petition For Rehearing and Rehearing enbanc. (No judge — _ requested a poll under fed. R. App. P. 35 on Petition for rehearing enbanc); * On Dec 2, 2020 formal Mandate of this court issued; * On Dec 1, 2020 United States District.Court for District of Maryland, No. ELH-18-133 Memorandum : : i " * Motion to Reconsider sent to the United States Court of Appeals for Forth Circuit on Dec 3, 2020, by Petitioner Benjamin E. Vance, case No. 20-6970 i : (11) : a . -. ‘Citations Vance v. State No. 448, Sept. Term 2013 ; -Vance v. Statel) 438. 741 (2014) : a . Vance v. U.S. District Court of MD (1:18-cv-00133-ELH) May 22, 2020 oo Vance -v. U.S. Court of Appeals No. 20-6970 cath Circuit Dec, 2 2020) | . ; : , Jurisdiction ; Judgement and ‘order sought to be reviewed was entered on Dec 2, 2020 in The. United States Court of Appeal for the Forth Circuit case no. 20-6970; Order staying Mandate ; until court ruled on petition for rehearing or rehearing enbanc or motion to stay was : entered on Nov. 5, 2020 case No. 20-6970; Order denying rehearing and rehearing enbanc Nov. 24, 2020 case no. 20-6970; Mandate ("The ‘judgement of this courtl} entered 10/23/20, takes effect today") Dec 2, 2020 Case No. 20-6970. : . a ; Statutory Provisions ; oo, _ Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S 79 (1986) . a JEB v.. Alabamal; 511 U.S. 127 (1994) a U.S Const. Amen 14 , U.S Const. Amend. IV ; ; . . . enc) ee “Notifications required by Rule 29.4(b) have been made : Constitutional Provisions . * Under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US. 79 (1986), a party may not use peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on juror's agel! racel/ or gender. a — © In JEB v. ‘Alabamal! 511.U.S. 127 (1994), the Supreme Court held that peremptory strikes based on gender also violates Equal Protection clause; . : * Depriving Petitioner of a fair and impartial jury guaranteed by U.S. Const. Amend VI; ° _ Due Process' clause standards of fundamental fairness. : : (IV) : ; : 7: "Statement of Case oO _In a Criminal Trial in Prince Georges County, Maryland on Feb 2, 2013 a jury convicted . “Petitioner Benjamin Vance of Felony Murder!; robbery, arm robbery and unlawful use of a ; : ' handgun. Jury found Petitioner not guilty. of. premeditated murder; only murder charge =” which he was lawfully indicted on. . The issue before this Honorable Court stems from the State Court and United States __ Appeals court deciding an important federal precedent question ina way that conflicts ‘with relevant decisions of this court. oe Petitioner Vance's defense counsel at the beginning stages of Trial ‘Jury Selection’ . (Voir Dire) made a ‘Batson’ challenge after twelve members of the “jury had been selected. The trial court rejected ['erroneously'] that Petitioner had not established a . . ‘Prima Facie' Ca