Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40032/USCOURTS-ca5-03-40032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammed Goujil
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 28, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40031

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOHAMMED GOUJIL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Consolidated with:

 

No. 03-40032

Summary Calendar

 

UNITES STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOHAMMED GOUJIL, also known as Ramiro Munoz,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CR-215-1

USDC No. C-01-CR-41-1

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

 Case: 03-40032 Document: 00511167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2004
No. 03-40031

c/w No. 03-40032

- 2 -

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohammed Goujil appeals the revocation of his supervised

release term imposed in connection with his conviction for passport

fraud. Goujil was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 months

for the violation. Goujil also appeals his conviction following a

jury trial for assault of a federal employee, for which he received

a sentence of a term of imprisonment of 36 months, to run

consecutive to his sentence imposed for the violation of the terms

of his supervised release. Goujil argues that the district court

judge plainly erred in both cases in failing to sua sponte recuse

herself based on judicial bias and prejudice. A review of the

record of all proceedings did not raise any type of inference that

would have led a reasonably objective person to doubt the

impartiality of the district court judge. See Levitt v. Univ. of

Texas at El Paso, 847 F.2d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. §

455. There was no indication that any of the district court’s

rulings were the result of a deep seated favoritism or antagonism.

The district court did not plainly err in not recusing itself from

presiding over the proceedings. See Liteky v. United States, 510

U.S. 540, 550-55.

The judgments in both cases are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-40032 Document: 00511167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2004