Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. Timothy Hatten, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Hatten appealed the denial of his motion for recusal of the district court judge in his criminal case. Hatten argued the judge was required to recuse himself because he had entered adverse rulings on Hatten's earlier motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient to demonstrate bias requiring recusal. The bias must stem from personal or extrajudicial sources, and Hatten did not identify any such bias.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Timothy Hatten, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    Timothy Hatten appealed the denial of his motion for recusal of the district court judge in his criminal case. Hatten argued the judge was required to recuse himself because he had entered adverse rulings on Hatten's earlier motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient to demonstrate bias requiring recusal. The bias must stem from personal or extrajudicial sources, and Hatten did not identify any such bias.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-08-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-12299

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Timothy Hatten appealed the denial of his motion for recusal of the district court judge in his criminal case. Hatten argued the judge was required to recuse himself because he had entered adverse rulings on Hatten's earlier motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient to demonstrate bias requiring recusal. The bias must stem from personal or extrajudicial sources, and Hatten did not identify any such bias.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    United States v. Timothy Hatten, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Hatten appealed the denial of his motion for recusal of the district court judge in his criminal case. Hatten argued the judge was required to recuse himself because he had entered adverse rulings on Hatten's earlier motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient to demonstrate bias requiring recusal. The bias must stem from personal or extrajudicial sources, and Hatten did not identify any such bias.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    Case: 13-12299

    Date Filed: 08/07/2015

    Page: 1 of 3

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-12299
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 9:90-cr-08065-JIC-9

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY HATTEN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (August 7, 2015)
    Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Case: 13-12299

    Date Filed: 08/07/2015

    Page: 2 of 3

    Timothy Hatten appeals the denial of his motion for recusal of United States
    District Judge James I. Cohn. Hatten is serving a 360-month sentence after being
    convicted of two counts of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to
    distribute and four counts of possession of crack or powder cocaine with the intent
    to distribute. As he did in his motion for recusal filed in the district court, Hatten
    argues here that Judge Cohn is required to recuse himself because he entered a
    series of wrongly decided orders in response to Hattens earlier motions.
    We review the denial of a motion for recusal for an abuse of discretion.
    United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We will
    affirm a judges refusal to recuse himself unless the impropriety is clear and one
    which would be recognized by all objective, reasonable persons. Id.
    A district court judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
    his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or where he has a personal bias
    or prejudice concerning a party. 28 U.S.C. 455(a), (b)(1). The bias must stem
    from extrajudicial sources, unless the judges acts demonstrate such pervasive bias
    and prejudice that it unfairly prejudices one of the parties. Bailey, 175 F.3d at
    968 (quotation omitted). We have previously stated that rulings adverse to a party
    are not sufficient to show pervasive bias. Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents,
    708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,

    Case: 13-12299

    Date Filed: 08/07/2015

    Page: 3 of 3

    555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994) ([J]udicial rulings alone almost never
    constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hattens motion for
    recusal because there is no clear impropriety that would be recognized by all
    objective, reasonable persons. See Bailey, 175 F.3d at 968. Hatten has not
    identified any bias stemming from personal or extrajudicial sources. His complaint
    that Judge Cohn demonstrated bias by issuing adverse decisionswithout any
    showing that those decisions were in fact wrongly decidedis not sufficient to
    require recusal.
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like