IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20357
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID ALAN ZOVATH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-422-1
--------------------
June 7, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Alan Zovath appeals his sentence following his
guilty plea to a charge of forging the signature of a federal
bankruptcy judge. As part of his plea agreement, Zovath waived the
right to appeal his sentence, but reserved the right to appeal the
district court’s upward departure from the sentencing guidelines.
A district court’s decision to depart from the guidelines is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ashburn,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-20357
-2-
38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Zovath has not shown
that consideration of his character and conduct for upward
departure is prohibited by law. See id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4.
Zovath argues (1) that there was insufficient basis for
an upward departure, and (2) that the district court gave no
explanation for why it bypassed intermediate offense levels in
choosing a six-level upward departure. United States v. Lambert,
984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc)(departure pursuant to §
4A1.3). We reject the first contention, inasmuch as the evidence
of bankruptcy court fraud, a theft charge and outstanding warrants
show that appellant has a longstanding and complete lack of respect
for the judicial process not taken into account by the guidelines
for the offense of conviction. Second, as to the extent of
departure, the district court stated that it had determined that a
sentencing range of 18 to 24 months was appropriate. The district
court was not required to discuss each category rejected. Id. ;
see also United States v. Lara, 975 F.2d 1120, 1125 n.3 (5th Cir.
1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
departing upward six offense levels.
Zovath argues that the judge should have recused himself
because of information submitted in relation to his request to be
released on bond. "[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of
facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current
proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for
a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated
No. 01-20357
-3-
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible."
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion.
AFFIRMED.