stressed the expert witness’ thesis that Jamaicans had “taken over” the local drug traffic. Id. The court held that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ emotions by arguing that people “just like” the defendants (Jamaican e) are present, courts have found prejudice. See Rodriguez Cortes, 949 F.2d 532. When they are absent, however, courts have often found no prejudice. See United States v. Hernandez, 865 F.2d 925, 927-28 (7th Cir.1989) (reference to “Cuban drug dealers” was prosecutor’s only reference to Cubans and, within context of the entire trial, it was not “so inflammatory as to prejudice the defendant.”). Accord United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1079 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied,—U.S.-, 114 S.Ct.- 1071, 127 L.Ed.2d 389 (1994). See also Kirvan, 997 F.2d at 965 (<HOLDING>). The court finds neither factor in this case.
holding that because the claims were dismissed with prejudice there was a final judgment for purposes of appellate review holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice