MOSLEY v. U.S., 3:14-cv-00399-MOC. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141118c04
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion to Recuse. For cause, petitioner makes reference to events at the sentencing hearing and states that this court "is materially apart of the `alleged misconduct' that he is alleging against the Government and/or he is likely to be called by me as a material witnesses in the precceding as to were the record silent." Motion (#23) at 3 (errors in the original). Petitioner has, however, failed to set
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion to Recuse. For cause, petitioner makes reference to events at the sentencing hearing and states that this court "is materially apart of the `alleged misconduct' that he is alleging against the Government and/or he is likely to be called by me as a material witnesses in the precceding as to were the record silent." Motion (#23) at 3 (errors in the original). Petitioner has, however, failed to set f..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's Motion to Recuse. For cause, petitioner makes reference to events at the sentencing hearing and states that this court "is materially apart of the `alleged misconduct' that he is alleging against the Government and/or he is likely to be called by me as a material witnesses in the precceding as to were the record silent." Motion (#23) at 3 (errors in the original). Petitioner has, however, failed to set forth any facts that would lead a reasonably objective person to doubt the impartiality of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b).
Whether to recuse is measured by an objective standard that "asks whether the judge's impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable, well-informed observer who assesses all the facts and circumstances." United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation omitted). Petitioner's take on what occurred during the sentencing hearing, even if fully credited, provides no basis for recusal.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Recuse (#23) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
