to the trial court in conducting voir dire in the area of pretrial publicity and in other areas of inquiry that might tend to show juror bias.” Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 427, 111 S.Ct. 1899. Even though Davis’ counsel was not allowed to ask more specific questions regarding the publicity, every seated juror stated his or her willingness and ability to set aside the effect of publicity and to approach the case with an open mind. Further probing as to the specific contents of the juror’s media exposure obviously could have been beneficial to Davis for purposes of exercising his peremptory challenges, but Mu’Min explicitly has rejected this benefit as a basis for bringing a constitutional challenge to the adequacy of the state court voir dire proceedings. See id. at 424-25, 111 S.Ct. 1899 (<HOLDING>). The court finds that the fact that the state
holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that genderbased peremptory challenges also violate the fourteenth amendment holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner holding that constitutional claims are extraneous resentencing issues that a court cannot address during a  3582c2 proceeding and that a defendant is entitled to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence by making a collateral attack under 28 usc  2255 holding that because peremptory challenges are not constitutionally mandated this benefit cannot be a basis for making content questions about pretrial publicity a constitutional requirement