Opinion ID: 3214452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recusal Order Was Reviewable

Text: As an initial matter, we must determine if we are permitted to review Herrera-Valdez’s appeal of his motion to disqualify at this stage in the proceedings. Our circuit is the only one to hold that appellate review of a judge’s failure to dis- qualify herself under § 455(a) requires petitioning the appellate court for a writ of mandamus prior to trial. United States v. Ruzzano, 247 F.3d 688, 694 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Boyd, 208 F.3d 638, 645 (7th Cir. 2000). We have expressed several reasons for this rule. Foremost is the goal of preventing damage to the judiciary’s public image by swiftly remedying any perception of bias. Id. “Once the proceedings at issue are concluded, a post hoc motion for recusal will do little to remedy any appearance of bias that was present.” United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Troxell, 887 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1989). Second, is the desire to promote judicial economy. “Counsel who perceive a problem under § 455(a) must not tarry, for delay imposes heavy costs on other litigants and the judicial system.” In re Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1226, 1232 (7th Cir. 1988). We have also noted that unlike a case of actual bias under 6 No. 14-3534 § 455(b), a party’s substantial rights are not affected by the denial of a recusal motion under § 455(a), and “it is a fundamental principle of appellate review that unless an error affects the substantial rights of the appellant, it is not a basis for reversal.” Ruzzano, 247 F.3d at 693 (citing Troxell, 887 F.2d at 833). However, we have considered relaxing the mandamus requirement in special circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Ward, 211 F.3d 356, 364 (7th Cir. 2000) (questioning application of mandamus requirement where party did not discover information upon which recusal motion was based until after trial). We have also debated the merits of denying parties the ability to appeal disqualification if they fail to do so immediately after the district court rules on their motions. See Boyd, 208 F.3d at 650 (Ripple, J., dissenting) (observing that other circuits have found parties do have some rights under § 455(a), and direct appeals can provide a “partial cure” to any harm to public perceptions of the judiciary). Herrera-Valdez did not petition for a writ of mandamus when his § 455(a) motion was denied in the district court proceedings. Instead, he entered into a conditional plea agreement which preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion. He points to our cases which allow that “[w]ith the consent of the government and approval of the court, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty, reserving … the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion.” United States v. Kingcade, 562 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government agrees that we may review Herrera-Valdez’s recusal argument because of the express reservation in No. 14-3534 7 the conditional plea agreement that the district court approved. We have never examined whether a party has effectively waived its right of appellate review of a disqualification motion in the context of a plea agreement that reserves certain arguments for appeal. Several factors lead us to conclude that under these circumstances, we may review Herrera-Valdez’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his disqualification motion. First, the Supreme Court has reviewed appellate courts’ decisions regarding disqualification motions under § 455(a) even when the appeal was not from a mandamus ruling, suggesting that the lack of an interlocutory appeal does not deprive us of jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the disqualification motion. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994); Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988). We have instead construed a failure to adhere to the mandamus requirement as a waiver of a § 455(a) recusal argument on appeal. See United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 966, 980 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Smith, 210 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2000). This distinction makes the government’s express request that we review the recusal issue significant. It means the government has effectively waived any argument that Herrera-Valdez waived his ability to appeal the district court’s ruling. See, e.g., United States v. Adigun, 703 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that government can “waive waiver” if it fails to assert the preclusive effect of waiver before the appellate court). Second, the circumstances of Herrera-Valdez’s appeal mitigate some of the usual concerns underlying the mandamus 8 No. 14-3534 requirement. For example, if a full-blown trial or series of rulings occurred between the denial of a recusal motion and appeal of that motion, not only would significant judicial resources be wasted, but all of the intervening rulings would be vulnerable to public perceptions of bias. Here, Herrera-Valdez’s case terminated quickly (he entered into the plea agreement a mere fourteen days after his recusal motion was denied), and he only filed one motion between the time Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied his recusal motion and the court entered his guilty plea. After his recusal motion was denied, the subsequent ruling on the motion to dismiss the indictment and sentencing may have damaged the image of the judiciary and wasted some judicial resources. But we do not think the damage here is beyond repair on appeal, and the swift and relatively straightforward disposition of this case persuade us that the benefits of reviewing the recusal motion at this juncture outweigh the costs. In any event, we need not rule on the propriety of reserving the right to appeal recusal motions in every plea agreement. Rather, we find that these unique circumstances—the short time that passed between the recusal ruling and Herrera-Valdez’s appeal, the relatively limited substantive proceedings between the ruling and the appeal, and the government’s waiver of the mandamus issue—allow us to review the recusal motion on appeal. So we continue to the merits of Herrera-Valdez’s § 455(a) argument.