United States v. Mark Ciavarella, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that recusal was unwarranted where, although a judge expressed his personal opinion of a defendant outside of court, “he also expressly stated that his personal opinion would not guide his rulings”
• holding that recusal was unwarranted where, although a judge expressed his personal opinion of a defendant outside of court, “he also expressly stated that his personal opinion would not guide his rulings”
• holding that a Page 14 of 20 judge’s statement “that my personal beliefs cannot guide my responsibility and judgments” negated inference that the judge would act partially in accordance with his stated personal beliefs
• highlighting that a de novo resentencing is appropriate where a vacated count will impact a defendant’s offense level, Guideline range, or sentence
• finding recusal unnecessary where “every [allegedly problematic] statement attributed to [the judge] had in fact been expressed by him in his judicial opinion”
• finding recusal unnecessary where “every [allegedly problematic] statement attributed to [the judge] had in fact been expressed by him in his judicial opinion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).