Whether the prosecutor's peremptory striking of Hispanic prospective jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly affirmed the holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) and refused to allow state or federal courts to peel back the fundamental protections the Fourteenth Amendment provides. Yet in violation of this Court’s precedents and the rationale behind them, the decision below held that even if a prosecutor's explanation is directly tied to a juror’s race or ethnicity, courts will turn a blind eye and find that the reason is “race neutral.” An . important aspect of Batson was ensuring the public’s : faith in the judicial system, but these very clear displays of avoiding Batson violations through illogically expanding the definition of “race neutral” eradicate public confidence in the system’s fairness. As to sentencing, the Government sought to impose a sentence that is well above what was permissible under either federal or state law. Petitioners were sentenced to life in prison on Count I under federal law, which does not allow a life sentence unless the underlying applicable state law does. Here, however, the underlying state law also does not allow for a life sentence, except in limited circumstances where specific conditions are met. It is undisputed that those conditions were not satisfied here. Accordingly, Petitioners’ life sentences were impermissible under the statutory scheme enacted by Congress. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Mr. Nieto’s and Mr. Vallodolid’s convictions should be reversed because the Government’s peremptory striking of qualified . or Pa ii : Hispanic prospective jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause. : 2. Whether a lawful sentence of life imprisonment may be imposed under Title 18 Section 1963(a) when the Government does not establish that it is entitled to seek such a sentence.