2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-2-2012

USA v. Gilbert Robinson

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1284

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Gilbert Robinson" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1040.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1040
ALD-161 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1284

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GILBERT ROBINSON,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00121-001)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 19, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 2, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

In May 2004, Gilbert Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deliver in excess of 

50 grams of crack cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court 

sentenced him to 292 months of imprisonment, and we affirmed the sentence. United 
2

States v. Robinson, 186 F. App’x 240 (3d Cir. 2006). Robinson then filed an 

unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and we denied Robinson’s application for a 

certificate of appealability. He has since filed several unsuccessful challenges to his 

conviction. 

On November 23, 2011, Robinson filed a motion for the recusal of the District 

Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 & 455. The District Court dismissed the 

motion because there were no matters pending. Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in dismissing Robinson’s motion to recuse. As noted by the District Court, 

there were no matters pending at the time Robinson filed his motion to recuse. 

Moreover, Robinson has put forth no allegations that would support recusal. Under 28 

U.S.C. § 455, a judge should recuse if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or 

he has a personal bias. Under § 144, a judge should recuse if he has a personal bias or 

prejudice against the litigant. Robinson’s displeasure with the District Court’s legal 

rulings is not an adequate basis for recusal. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom 

Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of 

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior 

proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality 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). Furthermore, we note that even if the District 
3

Court Judge had recused himself in response to Robinson’s motion, the recusal would not 

invalidate Robinson’s conviction and sentence or provide Robinson with an avenue to 

challenge them.

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the 

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District 

Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s November 28, 2011, order. See

Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.