Reiterating its previous holding in Wade v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2000) 202 F.3d 1190, 1192, that the standards set forth in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, do not satisfy Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, the Ninth Circuit here reviewed de novo the state court’s ruling on whether petitioner had made a prima facie showing in challenging the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges. Before People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, California courts applied the “strong likelihood” standard, which, before Box, was a more stringent showing than the “reasonable inference” standard required by Batson to determine whether the challenges were made on the basis of group association.. (In Box, the California Supreme Court trumped Terhune by proclaiming the two phrases to mean the same thing in California. See People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, fn. 7.) Here, two African-American women remained seated at the time of the instant challenge, and additional African-Americans remained available to be drawn. The ultimate composition of the jury included the two African-American women, three Asian Americans, and one Pacific Islander. The Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner had alleged no facts to establish a prima facie case under the “reasonable inference” standard.