PER CURIAM:
Appellants were convicted of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) and for conspiracy to commit that offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371. They appealed on three grounds, one of which claimed that the prosecutor’s selection of the jury was racially motivated. This court affirmed. 787 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.1986). In Batson, the Supreme Court held that defendants may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in juror selection “solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant’s trial.” Batson v. Kentucky,— U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1722-23, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
The Supreme Court subsequently held that Batson applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review. Griffith v. Kentucky,—U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Therefore, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded this case for reconsideration. Allen v. U.S.,—U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1271, 94 L.Ed.2d 132 (1987). The holdings on the other two issues, regarding the admissibility of lay opinion evidence and evidence obtained during a Terry stop, were not affected.
The appellants initially contended that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. The government responded that three black citizens served on the trial jury. In the supplemental briefs requested by this court after Batson, the government also contended that it did not use its final peremptory challenge to remove any of these black jurors.
We believe that factual contentions of this nature are best resolved in the district court. “We have confidence that trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors.” Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Therefore, we remand to the district court for reconsideration of this issue in light of Batson.
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".