see also, Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (explicating term "testimonial”); Michigan v. Biyant, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 179 L.Ed.2d 93, 2011 WL 676964 (2011) (same). 16 . As noted above, Gamory made a Batson challenge to four of the government’s six peremptory strikes. On appeal, he claims that the government used all of its “six” peremptory strikes against African-Americans. The record does not reflect the race of jurors 18 and 20 which Gamory now claims were stricken in violation of Batson. To the extent there is an issue with respect to the race of jurors 18 and 20, Gamoiy failed to make a sufficient record in the District Court to allow us to review this claim. See United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1520 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Further, the government maintains that only
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 peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial holding that private litigants in civil cases may not use peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner holding a party alleging discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges must make a record supporting such allegation