The charming defendant benjamin moru was convicted in a federal district court for the possession of counterfeit securities in violation of federal law. moru appealed his conviction to the u. s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, arguing that the district court erred by permitting the government to peremptorily challenge female prospective jurors on the basis of gender. the first government peremptory challenge was exercised against an unmarried white woman, and the second was exercised against an unmarried black woman. moru objected to the second challenge on the basis that it was racially discriminatory. in response to the district court’s request to explain the challenge, the government counsel responded: “because she was a single female and my concern, frankly, is that she, like the other juror i struck, is single and given defendant’s good looks would be attracted to the defendant.” the district court denied moru’s motion for a new jury. moru appealed the district court’s decision. during the appeal, the government argued that the peremptory strikes were valid since they were based on marital status, not gender. with regard to the peremptorily challenges, how should the appellate court decide?