United States v. Ibarra-Castaneda

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting Defendant’s argument that recusal is required under either § 455(b)(4) or § 455(a) where husband held a financial interest in Wells Fargo, a non-party, and “[tjhe argument for recusal merely concerns a collateral consequence of sentencing Defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).