Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANH HUU LAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 15-10121
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANH HUU LAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANH HUU LAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
R. Steven Lapham, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tanh Huu Lam, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tanh Huu Lam appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Citing prior statements and rulings by the district court in his case, Lam argues that the district judge should have granted his motion for recusal. We review the district court's denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam's motion because the motion was unsupported by evidence that would cause "a reasonable person -with knowledge of all the facts" to question the judge's impartiality. See id. (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 804 (9th Cir.2012) (judge's conduct during the course of the case does not provide a basis for recusal "except in the rarest of circumstances" (internal quotations omitted)).
Lam's motion to certify a question of law to this court is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.