UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATTY JEAN CYRUS,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
CLARENCE EDWARD CYRUS, a/k/a Red, a/k/a CC,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-99-221)
Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 14, 2004
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Isaac Diggs, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Mark C. Moore, Chief, Narcotics Unit, Beth Drake,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Patty Jean Cyrus appeals the district court’s order
directing the forfeiture to the United States of certain real
property in Florence, South Carolina.* The district court found
that the property was purchased with drug proceeds and that Cyrus
was not, as she claimed, the bona fide purchaser of the property.
Evidence before the court demonstrated that the property was
instead purchased by Cyrus’ brother, Clarence Cyrus, with proceeds
obtained from his distribution of cocaine and crack.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district
court should have recused itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
(2000). The district court presided at the trial and sentencing of
Clarence Cyrus. At sentencing, the court commented that it
believed that Cyrus and her uncle, Robert Singletary, had lied
under oath when they testified that Patty Cyrus purchased the
property. Cyrus claims that the court’s comment disclosed that the
judge had a pre-existing bias that reasonably placed in question
the court’s impartiality at the ancillary forfeiture proceeding.
Under § 455(a), any alleged bias ordinarily must stem
from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits
that is based on something other than what the judge learned from
participating in the case. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
*
The court also ordered the forfeiture of $690,000 plus
interest; however, it is only the forfeiture of the real property
that Patty Cyrus contests.
- 3 -
555 (1994). Our review of the record discloses that the court’s
opinion was not based on any extrajudicial source and that there
existed no “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
fair judgment impossible.” See id. Accordingly, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for recusal, and we affirm.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -