UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6830
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRANCE LAMONT MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CR-98-13-4-1H)
Submitted: September 14, 2000 Decided: September 26, 2000
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance Lamont Moore, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Lamont Moore appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for judicial recusal. Recusal is governed by 28
U.S.C. § 455 (1994), which provides in relevant part:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding . . . .
28 U.S.C. § 455.
This Court reviews a district judge’s refusal to recuse him-
self for abuse of discretion. See United States v. DeTemple, 162
F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1137 (1999).
Applying this standard to the instant facts, we find that Moore
fails to demonstrate such an abuse. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s denial of his motion. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
United States v. Moore
Combined Opinion