Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman A. PARADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-26
Citations: 408 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 10-3216
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman A. PARADA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman A. PARADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-3216.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 26, 2011.
James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Norman A. Parada, Otisville, NY, pro se.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant appeals the district court's denial of his motion for recusal, which he filed in the underlying criminal case after his conviction became final through the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. We affirm.
When Appellant filed his recusal motion, his conviction was final and there were no pending motions or proceedings in the district court. As it related to the closed criminal proceeding, his motion was moot because granting the motion to recuse would have provided him with no effective relief. See Kan. Judicial Review v. Stout, 562 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir.2009). To the extent he sought the district judge's recusal in any future habeas or other proceedings, his motion was unripe because no such proceedings were pending. See Morgan v. McCotter, 365 F.3d 882, 890-91 (10th Cir.2004). And, to the extent he now advances constitutional claims relating to his conviction, these claims were not presented to the district court and therefore are not properly before this court. See Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 928 F.2d 966, 970 (10th Cir.1991).
The district court's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.