in Hamilton’s jury-pool was 22. (Appendix D omitted Jerry Rocha and Mary Rodarte.) The percentage of Hispanics on Hamilton’s venire was 13.75% (22 of 160). These figures represent a 11.1% absolute disparity between the Hispanic representation on Hamilton’s jury venire and in the county’s adult Hispanic population. Although this percentage of under-representation is slightly greater than the amount held inadequate to alone show purposeful discrimination in Swain, Hamilton fails to address other issues which would narrow the gap between adult population and the jury pool, such as citizenship, prior felony conviction, or the ability to speak and understand English. See California Code of Civil Procedure section 230 and United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 447 F.3d 699, 701 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Hamilton provides no evidence to support his
holding that a trial court has discretion to qualify experts and rely on various methods in making a valuation determination holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects holding a determination of underrepresentation must rely on evidence that most accurately reflects the juryeligible population holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination