Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): error, appellant contends the trial court was not an impartial tribunal because of its membership in the Children’s Assessment Center judicial council. In points of error one through three, appellant challenges the trial court’s and the recusal courts’ denials of his motions to recuse and motion for new trial. In points of error four through six, appellant contends the trial court and the recu-sal courts erred by refusing to hear evidence on the motions and allowing the motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law without a hearing. A.Waiver Initially, the State contends appellant has waived his recusal challenges because he did not comply with the 10-day notice provision of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. See Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Tex.R. Civ. P. 18a. Appellant filed his 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that rule 4k2 does apply to admiralty cases (B) holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to  2255 proceedings (C) holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to  3582c2 proceedings (D) holding that 10day notice provision for motion to recuse in rule 18a explicitly apply to criminal cases (E) holding that action of judge assigned to hear a motion to recuse in signing an order denying the motion was not a proceeding required to be carried out from in the county seat
Output (English): holding that action of judge assigned to hear a motion to recuse in signing an order denying the motion was not a proceeding required to be carried out from in the county seat