[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12269

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IRAN DWAYNE KETCHUP, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 4:94-cr-00025-CDL-MSH-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12269 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12269

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In 1998, Iran Ketchup, a pro se federal prisoner, filed a 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentences. The district court 

denied his motion in 2001. Then, almost 20 years later, Ketchup 

moved for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60. The district court denied that motion as well. 

Ketchup subsequently moved for disqualification of the district 

court judge who denied his Rule 60 motion.1 He argued that the 

judge should have disqualified himself because: (1) he could not be 

impartial to the case because granting Ketchup’s motion would 

have potentially disgraced another judge’s career; (2) he had expressed positive personal feelings towards the judge who presided 

over Ketchup’s original trial at the former judge’s portrait unveiling; (3) he was unwilling to review Ketchup’s prior cases; (4) he had 

previously erroneously rejected Ketchup’s claims; and (5) a material witness in his case was within a “third degree of relationship” 

with the district court judge. Again, the district court denied the 

motion. Ketchup’s appeal followed.

1 Ketchup also moved to file out-of-time objections and to strike the government’s response to his Rule 60 motion, which the district court also denied. 

However, we will not review the denial of those motions because Ketchup 

failed to plainly and prominently raise those issues in his appellate brief. See 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that issues not 

briefed by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned).

USCA11 Case: 22-12269 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 2 of 4
22-12269 Opinion of the Court 3

We review de novo whether a case is moot. Christian Coal. of 

Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011). Issues

are “moot when [they] no longer present[] a live controversy with 

respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Id. at 1189 

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Friends of Everglades v. 

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009)). We 

have no authority to rule on moot issues. Id.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for judicial 

disqualification for abuse of discretion. Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 

876, 878 (11th Cir. 1988). A judge should disqualify himself from 

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned “or if he has a personal bias against a party.” Id.; see also 28 

U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). When reviewing for impropriety, the allegations must be reviewed to determine whether an objective, disinterested layperson, who is fully informed of all the facts underlying the allegations, “would entertain a significant doubt about the 

judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1371, 1321 

(11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Parker 

v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988)). When 

reviewing for bias, “[t]he bias must arise from an extrajudicial 

source, except in the rare case where pervasive bias and prejudice 

is shown by otherwise judicial conduct.” Giles, 853 F.2d at 878 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Davis v. Bd. of Sch.

Comm’rs, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (5th Cir. 1975)). 

A judge is not required to “recuse himself based on unsupported, irrational, or tenuous allegations.” Id. If a judge fails to 

USCA11 Case: 22-12269 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12269

disqualify himself from a case where disqualification is warranted, 

vacatur of the judgment is a possible remedy. See Liljeberg v. Health 

Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988) (vacating a district court decision when the district court judge failed to disqualify 

himself under § 455(a)).

On appeal, Ketchup contends the district court abused its 

discretion when it denied his motion to disqualify, relying on the 

reasons he stated in the original motion. In response, the government argues that this case is moot and, alternatively, that Ketchup’s 

contention is meritless. 

As a preliminary matter, the current case is not moot. If we

were to hold that the district court judge should have disqualified 

himself from the case, a possible remedy would be to vacate the 

denial of Ketchup’s Rule 60 motion, id., which would represent 

meaningful relief to him, Christian Coal., 662 F.3d at 1189.

Nevertheless, we affirm the district court’s denial of 

Ketchup’s motion to disqualify because the district court did not 

abuse its discretion. Ketchup’s accusations amounted to unsupported and tenuous allegations, and they did not support the conclusion that the district court judge should have recused himself. 

Giles, 853 F.2d at 878. The district court judge’s impartiality cannot 

be reasonably questioned, nor do the allegations support a finding 

that the judge held a personal bias against Ketchup. Id. Thus, we 

AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Ketchup’s motion to disqualify.

USCA11 Case: 22-12269 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024 Page: 4 of 4