A.
WHETHER PETITIONER ESTABLISHED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING COUNTERVAILING FACTORS EXCUSING HIM FROM MAKING HIS SIMILARLY SITUATED BATSON-BASED ARGUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT?

B.
WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WRONGLY ACCEPTED THE GOVERNMENT'S POST HOC RATIONALIZATION CONCERNING ITS JUSTIFICATION FOR STRIKING JUROR 10, WHILE IGNORING OBJECTIVE FACTORS TO THE CONTRARY?

C.
WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY OVERLOOKING A MATERIAL MATTER OF LAW CONCERNING A BATSON CHALLENGE?

Whether petitioner established prima facie evidence demonstrating countervailing factors excusing him from making his similarly situated Batson-based argument before the trial court?