disparities alone,” Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted); see also Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 682 (9th Cir.2002); “[t]here is no magic number of challenged jurors which” automatically establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, United States v. Chinchilla, 874 F.2d 695, 698 (9th Cir.1989). Overall, when deciding whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Id.; Tolbert v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir.1999). In this case, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that the state court decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See Williams, 306 F.3d at 681-82 (<HOLDING>). Johnson failed to set out sufficient facts to
holding that a petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of illegal discrimination because the petitioner needed to point to more facts than the number of africanamericans struck in order to establish a pattern of strikes supporting an inference of discrimination holding that without more the mere fact that the prosecutor used a high number of strikes to remove women from the venire is insufficient to establish a prima facie case holding that the strike of one hispanic veniremember was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination where the challenging party failed to show any pattern or any other evidence to the trial court which would raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove that veniremember on account of her race holding that an employees attempt to prove actual discrimination requires more substantial evidence than a prima facie case because evidence of pretext and discrimination is viewed in light of the employers justification holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1