mode of questioning would have given him more timely information about that juror. Finally, West notes in the introductory portion of his brief — but not in the argument section — that he “was forced to use peremptory challenges on five jurors” who might otherwise have been struck for cause, “because he. did not have sufficient knowledge to appropriately'judge the level of their potential bias.” Appellant’s Br. 12. According to their juror questionnaires, one of the five was an FBI attorney, one was a Department of Justice attorney, one was a security officer, and two listed no employment at all. See Trial Tr. 9-20 (Sept. 30, 2004). No doubt the reason West does not argue this point is that the Supreme Court has foreclosed it.' See Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 307, 120 5.Ct. 774 (<HOLDING>). C Although we affirm West’s conviction, our
holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause 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 holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race holding that trial courts erroneous refusal to strike juror for cause impaired defendants statutory right to his allotted number of peremptory challenges holding that batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant