Opinion ID: 742463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court Preserved Ross's Right to Appeal

Text: 4 Because the district court told Ross he had the right to appeal, that right was not waived by the plea agreement. United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 916-19 (9th Cir.1995). Ross did not violate his plea agreement by filing this appeal because the district court preserved Ross's right to appeal. Accordingly, we reject the Government's request to remand this case to the district court to set aside Ross's guilty pleas. 5 B. The District Court Did Not Err by Denying Ross's Motion to Recuse Judge Quackenbush 6 The First and Tenth Circuits disagree as to whether a defendant may appeal the denial of a motion to recuse after pleading guilty. Compare United States v. Chantal, 902 F.2d 1018 (1st Cir.1990), with United States v. Gipson, 835 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir.1988). Resolution of this issue is not necessary, however, because even if Ross is permitted to appeal the issue, his argument is meritless. 7 In his opening brief, Ross asserts two errors committed by the district court regarding its failure to recuse Judge Quackenbush. First, he argues that Judge Gonzalez erred by denying his motion to recuse Judge Quackenbush. Second, he argues that Judge Quackenbush erred by failing sua sponte to recuse himself. 8 A district court's decision whether to grant a motion for recusal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1994). When recusal is not raised below, the allegation of judicial bias is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Bosch, 951 F.2d 1546, 1548 (9th Cir.1991). 9 Ross brought his motion to recuse Judge Quackenbush under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a) & (b)(1), alleging that Judge Quackenbush was biased or prejudiced against Ross. The test for bias or prejudice is identical under § 144 and 455. United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir.1980). In support of his motion to recuse, Ross included the affidavit of his attorney. The only fact supporting the allegation that Judge Quackenbush was prejudiced was that Ross had previously filed a lawsuit against Judge Quackenbush. We have previously rejected precisely the same argument raised by Ross in an earlier case. See United States v. Ross, No. 92-50286, 1993 WL 94360 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 1993). That case involved Ross's attempt to recuse Judge Keep from presiding over his criminal contempt trial. As we explained in the previous disposition, Ross may not create a basis for recusal simply by naming federal judges as defendants in his ongoing and prolific litigation efforts. 10 Ross also argues that even if Judge Gonzalez did not err in denying his motion to recuse, that Judge Quackenbush sua sponte should have recused himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Ross did not raise this issue before Judge Quackenbush. While such a failure 'does not preclude raising on appeal the issue of recusal under § 455,' it does increase [his] burden in demonstrating that the district judge erred in not recusing himself. Pau v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.1991). Ross's claim is meritless because each allegation of bias relates to comments made by Judge Quackenbush during judicial proceedings. See id. ([R]ecusal under section 455 is required 'only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceedings.' ).