and intelligently exercise [his] peremptory strikes.” (Smallwood Brief, at 19.) He further asserts that as a result of the district court’s limitation of voir dire, he was unable “to determine whether the all-white jury harbored biased racial attitudes.” (Id.) This argument is unpersuasive. Smallwood did not ask any questions about race during his thirty minutes of questioning. He does not indicate what he would have asked if he had been given additional time. Most importantly, he does not explain his failure to object or ask for additional time when the district court indicated that his time was up. In short, he has provided no basis for us to conclude that the district court improperly limited his voir dire. See United States v. Ricketts, 146 F.3d 492, 495-96 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). D. Life Sentence Smallwood argues that,
holding that the time to disposition is more important than time to trial holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that defendant waived review of an issue which he raised for the first time during oral argument holding that a case remained pending where the time to file a rehearing petition had not expired holding that defendants argument that the district court improperly limited voir dire was meritless when the defense wasted time during voir dire and failed to request additional time when its time had expired