UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that 9 neither a letter from the presiding judge about defendant’s case nor the judge’s “allegedly 10 prejudicial comments during voir dire” to which defendant never objected were sufficient to 11 question the judge’s impartiality
• holding the standard for recusal is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”
• setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455
• setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455
• setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 2 21-16258 455
• setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).