FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10121
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:97-cr-00054-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TANH HUU LAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Tanh Huu Lam appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion
for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Citing prior statements and rulings by the district court in his case, Lam
argues that the district judge should have granted his motion for recusal. We
review the district court’s denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam’s motion because the motion was
unsupported by evidence that would cause “a reasonable person with knowledge of
all the facts” to question the judge’s impartiality. See id. (internal quotations
omitted); see also United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 804 (9th Cir. 2012)
(judge’s conduct during the course of the case does not provide a basis for recusal
“except in the rarest of circumstances” (internal quotations omitted)).
Lam’s motion to certify a question of law to this court is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10121