FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14069 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 1 5 2 - CR- T- 3 0 - TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T I M O T H Y A . D A Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 2, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T i m othyA . D a y , af

e de r a l pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e the de ni a l of hi s m ot i on2

f orr e c us a l , s e e 28 U . S . C . § 455( a ) , tha the f i l e d i n a nt i c i pa t i on of

f utur e m ot i ons he m i ghtf

i l e , s uc h a s am ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e , s e e i d. § 2 2 5 5 . O n A p r il 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w e a f f irm e dD a y ’s c o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e f o rm a il f r aud a nd c ons pi r a c yt o c om m i tm a i l f r aud. O n J une 2, 2006, D a yf i l e d w i th the di s tr i c tc ourthi s m ot i on f orr e c us a l i n w hi c h he s ought , i n s ubs t a nc e , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtr e c us e i t s e l f pur s ua ntt o s e c t i on 455( a ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d the m o tio n o n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . O n A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , D a yf ile dw ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e . B e c aus e D a yf i l e d hi s m ot i on f o rr e c u s a l wh e n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i dn o th a v e ac o n tr o v e r s yb e f o r e i t , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e dju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth e m o tio n . W e v acat e th e o rd er o f th e d i stri ctco u rtan drem an dw i th i n stru ct i o n s t o d i sm i ss. W e r e vi e w de novo w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtha d j ur i s di c t i on. B i s hop v. R e n o , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “A rtic le I I I o f th e C o n s titu tio n lim its the ‘ j udi c i a l pow e r ’ of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s t o the r e s ol ut i on of ‘ c a s e s ’ a nd

‘ c ontr ove r s i e s . ’ ” V a l l e yF or ge C hr i s t i a n C ol l . v. A m s . U ni t e d f orS e pa r a t i on of C h u r c h & S ta te , I n c ., 4 5 4 U .S . 4 6 4 , 4 7 1 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 7 5 2 , 7 5 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T o m e e t th is r e q u ir e m e n t, ap a rtym u s t h a v e s ta n d in g . I d . a t 4 7 1 , 1 0 2 S . C t. a t 7 5 8 . I n th is appeal , “ the st andi ng qu es t i on . . . i s w hether the . . . st atut ory provi si on on w hi ch th e c laim re sts p ro p er ly ca n b e u n d er sto o das g ra n ti n g p er so n s in th e p lain ti ff’s3

p o s itio n ar ig h t to ju d ic ia l r e lie f .” W a rth v . S e ld in , 4 2 2 U .S . 4 9 0 , 5 0 0 , 9 5 S . C t. 21 97 , 22 06 (197 5). S e c tio n 4 5 5 ( a ) r e q u ir e s aju d g e o f th e U n ite dS ta te s to “d is q u a lif yh im s e lf in a nypr oc e e di ng i n w hi c h hi s i m pa rt i a l i tym i ghtr e a s onabl ybe que s t i one d. ” 28 U . S . C . § 455( a ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he s t a tut e de f i ne s “ pr oc e e di ng” t o i nc l ude “p r e tr ia l, tr ia l, ap p e lla te r e v ie w , o ro th e rs ta g e s o f litig a tio n .” I d . § 4 5 5 ( d ) ( 1 ) . T h is de f i ni t i on “ i m pl i e s the j udge ’ s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n de c i s i ons a f f e c t i ng the s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s of l i t i ga nt s t o a n a c tua l c a s e orc ontr ove r s y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c i a rr a , 851 F .2 d 6 2 1 , 6 3 5 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . “[ S ]e c tio n 4 5 5 c o n f e r s ar ig h t u p o n [ a ] litig a n t to s e e kr e c u s a l . . . . d u r in g . . . p h a s e s o f th e litig a tio n .” I d . D a yf ile d h is m o tio n f

o rr e c u s a l a f

te rth e c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n a g a in s t h im had con cl ud ed and b ee n aff i rm ed, bu tbefore he fi l ed any m ot i on t o com m ence a c o lla te r a l a tta c ko n h is s e n te n c e . D a yr e q u e s te dth a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e c u s e its e lf fro m co n si d erat i o n o f fu tu re m o t i o n s th ath e m i g h t , o r m i g h tn o t , fi l e. B ecau se there w as no pend i ng ac t i on before the di stri ctcourti n w hi ch D ay ’ s r i gh t s w er e a t i s s ue , D a ydi d notha ve s t a ndi ng t o s e e k r e c us a l unde rs e c t i on 455( a ) , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rD a y ’ s m ot i on. S e e S c i a rr a , 851 F . 2d at63 6 (ho l di ng thatpet i t i on er s had no st andi ng t o i nv ok e s ec t i on 45 5 w hen there w as no pend i ng ac t i on before the di stri ctcourt ).4

T h e o rd er o f th e d i stri ctco u rti s VA C A TED , a n dth is m a tte ris R EM A N D ED w i th i n stru ct i o n s t o d i sm i ss.