ALD-161 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1284
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GILBERT ROBINSON,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00121-001)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 19, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed May 2, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
In May 2004, Gilbert Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deliver in excess of
50 grams of crack cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court
sentenced him to 292 months of imprisonment, and we affirmed the sentence. United
States v. Robinson, 186 F. App’x 240 (3d Cir. 2006). Robinson then filed an
unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and we denied Robinson’s application for a
certificate of appealability. He has since filed several unsuccessful challenges to his
conviction.
On November 23, 2011, Robinson filed a motion for the recusal of the District
Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 & 455. The District Court dismissed the
motion because there were no matters pending. Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Robinson’s motion to recuse. As noted by the District Court,
there were no matters pending at the time Robinson filed his motion to recuse.
Moreover, Robinson has put forth no allegations that would support recusal. Under 28
U.S.C. § 455, a judge should recuse if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or
he has a personal bias. Under § 144, a judge should recuse if he has a personal bias or
prejudice against the litigant. Robinson’s displeasure with the District Court’s legal
rulings is not an adequate basis for recusal. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom
Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). “[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 favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Furthermore, we note that even if the District
2
Court Judge had recused himself in response to Robinson’s motion, the recusal would not
invalidate Robinson’s conviction and sentence or provide Robinson with an avenue to
challenge them.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District
Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s November 28, 2011, order. See
Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
3