failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a subject the State alleges [causes it concern] is evidence suggesting that the explanation is a sham and a pretext for discrimination.” (quotations omitted)). In addition, the prosecutor failed to explain how Elizabeth G.’s education level was “related to the particular case to be tried,” as required by Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. There is little indication that a lack of educational experience would tend to make Elizabeth G. an unfavorable juror for the prosecution. The Reynosos’ case did not involve complicated issues of law that would arguably require a higher level of education; rather, it raised a straightforward issue of self-defense. Cf. United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 631-32 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tucker, 773 F.2d 136, 142
holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that the governments concern over lack of education was legitimately based on the complex legal issues raised by a fiftyeight count indictment