The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the * District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2936

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. James William Jenkins, Jr., * * [PUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 1998 Filed: April 9, 1998

___________ Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. In November 1993, James W. Jenkins was convicted of maintaining a continuing cr iminalenterprise, cocaine distribution offenses, and money laundering. A t sentencing, he was found to be the leader of criminal activity responsible fo r dist ributing 21 kilograms of cocaine base and 381 kilograms of cocaine powder , producing a guidelines sentencing range of life in prison, which the district court-2-

im posed. In January 1996, Jenkins filed a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), relying upon the Sentencing Commission’s retroacti ve amendment of the Drug Quantity Ta

ble that reduced to level 38 the highest base offense level that may be asse ssed for drug quantity. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 505, mad e retroactiv e by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). District Judge D. Brook Bartlett, who ha d in itially sentenced Jenkins, concluded that this amendment reduced his overall bas e offens e level to 42, producing a guidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life i n priso n. The court therefore set a hearing to consider whether to reduce Jenkins’ s sentence in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Prior to the hearing, the matter was reassigned to District Judge Howard F

. Sachs. At the he aring, the government presented testimony by a Special Agent of the Inter nal Revenue Service in opposition to the motion to reduce. At the conclusion of this rather lengthy testimony, counsel for the parties argued their respective positions, and Jenkins addressed the court in support of a reduction in his sentence t o 360 months. Judge Sachs then ruled on the motion to reduce, prefacing his oral ruling with th e comment, “before taking the bench I had prepared material which I think is essentially sound and I will use it and perhaps have a comment or two here or there. Counsel can have what I have prepared.” The court’s prepared findings reconfirmed the findings of the first sentencing, adopted the revised presentence report, found that Jenkins was responsible for more than three times the minimum drug quantity qualifying for a thirtyyear sentence, and found that Jenkins’s criminal activity “has been the principal cause of ru ined lives within his family as well as unknown harm in the community.” Based upon these and other findings, the court resentenced Jenkins to life in prison. On appeal, Jenkin s argues for the first time that he is entitled to be resentenced before a different j udge because Judge Sachs came to the hearing with his mind made up, thereby depriving Jenkins of a fair hearing. This content ion is totally without merit. Assuming it has been properly preserved, a claim that a judge must be recused because his judicial actions reflect impermissible bias must clear a very high hurdle:-3-

[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prio r proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partial ity 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). Jenkins has not come anywher e near meeting this rigorous standard. Most of the facts relevant to resentencing wer e in the district court record available to Judge Sachs before the hearing. Reading that record, forming tentative opinions, and preparing tentative written findings an d conclusions before the hearing do not exhibi t “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism.” They refle ct diligence, careful preparation, and an efficient approach to managing the court ’s docket. When Jenkins presented no evidence at the hearing, and th e government presented lengthy testimony supporting a se ntence at the top of the revised guidelines range, the court, quite predictably, was not persuaded to change its tentative findings and conclusions. The record fully supports the district court’s judgment, and it is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.