Even assuming that Mr. Soler clears the preservation hurdle, we cannot conclude that his submission has merit. Mr. Soler contends that, at trial, the district court applied an erroneous standard in its ruling on the challenge to the juror. He argues that the district court did not understand that a party of one race may challenge the exclusion of a juror of another race. He further submits that the district court compounded the error by failing to acknowledge it in ruling on the motion for reconsideration. We believe these contentions are without substance. An examination of the district court's Order disposing of the motion for reconsideration makes it clear that the court was aware of the principles governing juror challenges. In denying the motion for reconsideration, the district court relied on
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, ––––, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1373, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), an opinion rendered four months after the challenge had been made. In
Powers, the Supreme Court held that “race is irrelevant to a defendant's standing to object to the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.”
Id. Therefore, even if the district court had misapprehended the governing principle at the time of trial, it is clear that, at the time the court ruled on the motion for reconsideration, it understood the principle set forth in
Powers.