would assign. To the contrary, this case, in all important respects, is on all fours with Richardson. For largely the same reasons as stated in that case, we conclude that Duncan failed to establish, under the plain error standard of review, that his sentence was unconstitutionally determined by the executive branch. For these reasons, Duncan’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. 1 . Eleven law enforcement officials were implicated. 2 . Williams testified that demanding money from drug dealers in exchange for protection was common among his fellow officers. 3 . Rule 24(b) assigns the number of peremptory strikes to which the parties in a criminal case are entitled, in this case, ten for the defense and six for the prosecution. 4 . 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 5 . 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d
holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges holding racebased use of peremptory strikes against jurors unconstitutional holding that there was no batson claim even when the prosecution used nearly seventy percent 70 of its peremptory strikes to remove potential african american jurors holding that it was not iac to decline to use peremptory strike on a potential juror whose statements hinted at possible bias against defendant where counsel strategically used peremptory strikes against jurors who might have been more likely to convict holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors