Court Opinion

ID: 9385915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 19:00:34.48589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.455416
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13269    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 04/10/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13269
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL RAY ALFORD,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00028-RH-MAF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13269     Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 04/10/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13269

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael Ray Alford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals the denial of a post-judgment motion for recusal she filed in
       her criminal case. The Government, in turn, moves for summary
       affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule.
               The record shows Alford was originally convicted in 2017 of,
       inter alia, one count of receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C.
       § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). The Honorable Robert Hinkle presided over
       the case. After being found guilty by a jury, Alford appealed her
       conviction and we affirmed. See United States v. Alford, 744 F.
       App’x 650 (11th Cir. 2018). During the pendency of her appeal Al-
       ford sought to be released several times without success and, later
       filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In the present case, Alford asked
       Judge Hinkle to recuse himself and he denied the motion. This
       appeal followed.
              Alford asserts, in part, that Judge Hinkle was biased against
       her. She contends he incorrectly believed her to be guilty based on
       the jury verdict rather than the law and evidence she presented,
       leading him to state he would not release her even if he had the
       discretion to do so. Alford argues he was biased against her in a
       previous 2002 case and in connection with the § 2255 motion. In
       support of its motion, the Government contends Alford did not
USCA11 Case: 22-13269        Document: 13-1       Date Filed: 04/10/2023        Page: 3 of 4

       22-13269                  Opinion of the Court                             3

       show improper bias or pervasive bias and prejudice to merit
       recusal. After review, 1 we affirm.
               A judge must recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his
       impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
       Thus, “[t]he test is whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer
       fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal
       was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s
       impartiality.” Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524
       (11th Cir. 1988). Generally, a disqualification for bias under § 455
       arises from an extrajudicial source. Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876,
       878 (11th Cir. 1988). Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute
       a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. United States v.
       Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 828 (11th Cir. 2007). Unless a defendant can
       show pervasive bias, a judge’s rulings in the same or a related case
       are not a sufficient basis for recusal. Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234,
       1239 (11th Cir. 2000). “[A] judge, having been assigned to a case,
       should not recuse himself on unsupported, irrational, or highly ten-
       uous speculation.” In re Moody, 755 F.3d 891, 895 (11th Cir. 2014)
       (quotation marks omitted).
              We affirm Judge Hinkle’s decision not to recuse himself, as
       Alford did not demonstrate he was biased against her. Her argu-
       ments primarily revolve around the court’s adverse rulings against
       her in her criminal case and a past criminal proceeding. Judicial

       1 We review a district judge’s decision not to recuse himself for an abuse of
       discretion. United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004).
USCA11 Case: 22-13269         Document: 13-1        Date Filed: 04/10/2023         Page: 4 of 4

       4                          Opinion of the Court                      22-13269

       rulings alone, however, almost always do not constitute evidence
       of bias. Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 828. Further, aside from disagreeing
       with how Judge Hinkle ruled, she does not show pervasive bias in
       his rulings, and his adverse rulings are not sufficient to show bias.
       Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239. Therefore, she has not shown bias, and the
       district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion.
              Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for
       summary affirmance and DENY its motion to stay the briefing
       schedule as moot. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d
       1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (explaining summary disposition is ap-
       propriate, in part, where “the position of one of the parties is clearly
       right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question
       as to the outcome of the case . . . .”).
              AFFIRMED.

       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.