N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C OM M ODITY FUTURES TR ADING C OM M ISSION, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GORDON DRIVER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, And AXC ESS AUTOM ATION, LLC ; AXC ESS FUND M ANAGEM ENT, LLC , De fe nda

nts. No. 12-56521 D.C . No. 8:09-c v-00578-ODW -R Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * 

# FIL ED OCT 7 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Gordon Drive r a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in a n a c tion file d by the C om m odity Future s Tra ding C om

m ission (“ C FTC ” ) for viola tions of the C om m odity Exc ha nge Ac t a nd re late d re gula

tions a rising out of a

n a lle ge d Ponz i sc he m e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w for pla in
e rror a distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to re c use itse lf sua spontepursua

nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 455. Unite d State

s v . Spangle , 626 F.3d 488, 495 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror by

fa iling to re c use itse lf sua sponte from

he aring Drive r’ s re que sts to re l e a se pre viously froz e n a sse ts a

nd the C FTC ’ s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se eid. (se tting forth pla in e rror sta

nda rd of re v ie w whe n a

pa rty doe s not se e k re c usa l be fore the tria l c ourt). The isola te d
c om m e nts by the distric t c ourt upon whic h Drive r re lie s to support his a rgum e nts do not e s ta

blish the bia s or pa

rtia lity wa rranting re c usa l. Se eLite k y v . Unite d State s , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“ [J] udic ia l re m a rks during the

c ourse of . . . [proc e e dings] tha

t a re c ritic a l or disa

pproving of, or e ve n hostileto, c ounse l , the pa rtie s , or the ir c a se s, ordina rily do not support a

bia s or pa

rtia lity c ha lle nge .” ); se e also C le me ns v . U.S. Dist. C

o urt for C e n t. Dist. of C

al. , 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th C ir. 2005) (pe r c uriam ) (in a na l y z i ng § 455(a) m otions, this c ourt “ e m ploy [s] an obje c tive te st: whe the r a re a sona ble pe rson with knowle dge of a ll thefa c ts would

2 1 2
- 5 6 5 2 1c onc lude the judge ’ s im pa rtia lity m ight re a sona

bly be que stione d” (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). M ore ove r, “ judic ia l rulings a lone a lm o st ne ve r c onstitute a va lid ba sis for a

bia s or pa

rtia lity m otion.” Lite k

y , 510 U.S. a

t 555. To the e xte nt tha

t Drive r se e ks to c ha l le nge the unde rly ing gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt, we do not c onside r the se argum e nts be c a u se the y we re not distinc tly
ra ise d or a

rgue d in his opening brie f. Se eSmith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). AFFIRM E D
.

3 1 2
- 5 6 5 2 1