Case: 13-12299 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12299
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:90-cr-08065-JIC-9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY HATTEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 7, 2015)
Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12299 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Timothy Hatten appeals the denial of his motion for recusal of United States
District Judge James I. Cohn. Hatten is serving a 360-month sentence after being
convicted of two counts of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to
distribute and four counts of possession of crack or powder cocaine with the intent
to distribute. As he did in his motion for recusal filed in the district court, Hatten
argues here that Judge Cohn is required to recuse himself because he entered a
series of wrongly decided orders in response to Hatten’s earlier motions.
We review the denial of a motion for recusal for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). We will
affirm a judge’s refusal to recuse himself unless “the impropriety is clear and one
which would be recognized by all objective, reasonable persons.” Id.
A district court judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or where “he has a personal bias
or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). The bias “must stem
from extrajudicial sources, unless the judge’s acts demonstrate such pervasive bias
and prejudice that it unfairly prejudices one of the parties.” Bailey, 175 F.3d at
968 (quotation omitted). We have previously stated that rulings adverse to a party
are not sufficient to show pervasive bias. Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents,
708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
2
Case: 13-12299 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3
555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hatten’s motion for
recusal because there is no clear impropriety that would be recognized by all
objective, reasonable persons. See Bailey, 175 F.3d at 968. Hatten has not
identified any bias stemming from personal or extrajudicial sources. His complaint
that Judge Cohn demonstrated bias by issuing adverse decisions—without any
showing that those decisions were in fact wrongly decided—is not sufficient to
require recusal.
AFFIRMED.
3