OPINION

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals the order of the District Court granting Robert Lark’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This is the second time this case has come before us. We previously held that the District Court had not proceeded to the third step of the inquiry required under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and remanded for the court to conduct that analysis. See Lark v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 645 F.3d 596, 628 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Lark I ”). On remand, the District Court concluded that Lark had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Commonwealth had struck five Black potential jurors because of their race. We must now determine if the District Court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Holloway v. Horn, 355 F.3d 707, 713 (3d Cir. 2004); Lark I, 645 F.3d at 606.

We have explained that, “relief must be granted under Batson when even one black person is excluded [from the jury] for racially motivated reasons.” Holloway, 355 F.3d at 720 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have carefully considered the findings the District Court made on remand pursuant to its Third Step Batson analysis. We cannot conclude *162 that the court’s conclusion that at least one of the Commonwealth’s peremptory strikes was racially motivated is clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we will affirm the conditional grant of Lark’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus.