denied the motions, and Boddie-Noell now appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction to hear Boddie-Noell’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993). We address each of Boddie-Noell’s arguments in turn. II. A. Boddie-Noell first requests a new trial on the basis that Richardson used his peremptory challenges to remove only men from the venire in violation of Boddie-Noell’s constitutional rights as recognized in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 130-31, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 881 (4th Cir.1996) (recognizing that Fifth Amendment provides comparable protections in federal court); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 623-27, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because J.E.B. is based on the same logic and
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 racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment 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