IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT EV ANS MAHLER, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Case No. 3:16-cr-00105-AA-1 

OPINION AND ORDER 

In February 2016, defendant Robert Evans Mahler was indicted on one count of being a 

felon in possession ofa fireaim, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l). He now moves for me to 

recuse myself from presiding over this case, citing statements I made at a November 20, 2017 

status conference. I orally denied the motion at a hearing on January 16, 2018. This opinion 

explains more fully the reasons for that denial. 

A judge should recuse herself from any case where her "impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned" or where she "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal 

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 455. In 

general, "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding" does not 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
concern knowledge acquired tln·ough the usual course of comt proceedings. With respect to 

info1mation a judge learns tln·ough the usual pretrial process (e.g. suppression motions, pretrial 

conferences, etc.), "opinions formed by the judge ... 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." Litezy v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). A defendant may 

move for recusal by filing a "timely and sufficient affidavit" setting out facts showing that the 

judge "has a personal bias or prejudice" against him. Id. § 144. The motion must be 

accompanied by an affidavit from counsel stating that the motion is made in good faith. 

Prior to the November 20 status conference, defendant wrote me a letter describing how 

he felt tln·eatened by the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") assigned to his case when, 

during a meeting with defendant and his attorney, the AUSA mentioned, in the course of 

asse1ting that one of the guns defendant allegedly possessed had touched the state of Arkansas, 

that defendant's brother lived in Arkansas. Defendant interpreted the remark about his brother as 

a threat to his family. 

I addressed the letter on the record at the November 20 status conference. In his affidavit 

supporting the motion for recusal, defendant asserts that in the course of talking about the letter, I 

stated that defendant "was 'going to prison' no matter how hard [he] tr[ies] to fight for [his] 

rights as a citizen of the United States." Mahler Aff. if 3. Defendant did not have access to the 

transcript of the status conference when he made his affidavit. Defendant's attorney, Mr. 

W atTen, certified that he believed the affidavit was made in good faith. 

I have carefully reviewed the full transcript of the November 20 proceeding. The 

relevant portion of my remarks follows: 

So you've got a prosecutor who is determined to have this case move 

forward and he's been adamant about that all the way through. I've given you 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 
some accommodations with the idea that you can get some work done before you 

go to prison. Because as we know, the prison resources are dwindling. And 

healthcare issues are complicated when you have significant surgeries 

recommended. But we've gone past that now and we're going to move this case 

along. 

So if you have any other issues - it's not a surprise that you may not see 

eye-to-eye with the prosecutor, but as far as I read in this letter, he's not doing 

anything a prosecutor doesn't no1mally do in the course of their investigation. 

So however you want to view [the prosecutor's] demeanor, it's always 

difficult to be in the position you're in, but he's pursuing this case he needs to in 

the n01mal course. And you need to comply with your lawyers so that we can 

move to a decision-making point in this particular case. 

And you can either negotiate a resolution of this particular case and 

resolve it or the motions will be heard and they will move it along and/or we will 

have a jury or a judge trial. 

Tr. 9:8-22, 10:2-11, Nov. 20, 2017. I also stated, in reference to the letter, that "I appreciate the 

heads-up, I put everything on the table here, I expect all of you to behave as professionals." Tr. 

8:22-24, Nov. 20, 2017. 

There are no grounds for recusal. The "accommodations" and "some work" remarks 

refer to defendant's desire to complete a shoulder surgery before this case goes to trial. In early 

2017, defendant requested a continuance so that he could travel to India to obtain that surgery at 

a reasonable cost. See Def.'s Am. Mot. Continue & Allow Foreign Travel for Med. Procedures 

(doc. 41) (requesting a continuance to accommodate the surgery). The government objected, 

noting that there had already been three continuances, that defendant had waited a full year after 

indictment to request the surgery, and that pe1mitting defendant to travel internationally would 

increase the risk of flight. See Gov't's Resp. Mot. Continue Trial Date & Pe1mit Foreign Travel 

(doc. 44). In spite of those objections, I granted defendant's request and authorized the trip. See 

Doc. 55 (March 23, 2017 court order directing the government to return defendant's passport) & 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 
Doc. 59 (April 7, 2017 cou1t order striking the pretrial release condition that prevented defendant 

from applying for a new passport or international travel documents). In the end, defendant did 

not go to India for the surgery; before his depatture date, he fell and injured his other shoulder, 

preventing him from traveling. I then placed the case back on track toward a trial date. 

When I spoke at the hearing, I was referencing defendant's stated desire to complete an 

elective medical procedure before trial. I used the phrase "before you go to prison" because the 

charge against plaintiff canies an up to ten-year prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). In 

hindsight, I could have been clearer and stated that I made accommodations so the surgery could 

go forward before any possible prison sentence might begin. But even without that clarification, 

I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned on the basis of my statements at 

the November 20 status conference. I have not prejudged the evidence in this case and my 

statements did nothing to alter defendant's presumption of innocence or the government's burden 

to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Defendant's Motion for Judge to Recuse Herself from Case (doc. 90) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated thiso?st;;; of January 2018. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER