strikes than those provided under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(b), they had two strikes remaining after they used one to strike Juror 14, and they have offered no evidence that the jury that was ultimately seated was biased. Even if Juror 14 should have been excused for cause, the defendants suffered no Rule violation or Due Process violation. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 307, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000) (“[I]f the defendant elects to cure [the district court’s error in refusing to dismiss a juror for cause] by exercising a peremptory challenge, and is subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat, he has not been deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right.”); United States v. Powell, 226 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1166, 121 S.Ct. 1128,
holding that a complete failure to serve a defendant with process deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction violates due process and results in a judgment that is void as to that defendant and subject to challenge at any time holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices holding that the defendant suffered no rule or due process violation as to a particular prospective juror that should have been excused for cause where defendant used his last peremptory strike to remove that juror holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred holding violation of due process to penalize a criminal defendant for pursuing statutory right of appeal