effect” on him. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (quoting Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 550, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967)). Therefore, to prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, Petitioner “must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose.” Id. Petitioner has not attempted to meet this burden. All he offers in support of his equal protection claim is reference to statistics showing that fewer women than men are convicted of capital crimes and executed. He offers no evidence specific to his case that would support an inference that his sex or economic status played a part in his sentence. See Richmond v. Lewis, 948 F.2d 1473, 1490-91 (1990), vacated on other grounds, 986 F.2d 1583 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner is not entitled to relief on
holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge holding that custody decision based on race is not justified holding that medical evidence and a statistical study by the military was sufficient evidence to prove a discriminatory impact holding that statistical evidence that arizonas death penalty is discriminatorily imposed based on race sex and socioeconomic background is insufficient to prove that decisionmakers in petitioners case acted with discriminatory purpose