Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph T. BYRD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-05
Citations: 583 F. App'x 115
Docket Number: No. 13-4701
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph T. BYRD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph T. BYRD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 5, 2014.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Julie L.B. Johnson, Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mark W. Crooks, Assistant United States Attorney, Allison C. Pearson, Student Law Clerk, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ralph T. Byrd was convicted on three counts of contempt of court. The district court sentenced him to six months of probation and home confinement and forty hours of community service. He appeals, challenging the denial of his motion for a jury trial and arguing that he was denied a fan* trial in the selection of the judge to preside over his trial.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and we find no reversible error. Specifically, we find that Byrd was not entitled to a jury trial under either the Sixth Amendment or pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 402, 3691 (2012). Additionally, we conclude that there is no merit to Byrd's claim of a denial of a fair trial by the assignment of the case to the district court judge. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 531, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (finding no need for recusal and no due process violation where allegation of bias is "remote, trifling, and insignificant"); United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir.2003) (applying objective reasonable person standard to determination of whether recusal is required). Accordingly, we affirm Byrd's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.