United States v. Danial Martin, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12596

Danial Martin pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance near a playground; sentenced to 35 months custody and 6 years supervised release.
On supervised release, Martin accrued numerous violations and incident reports; at an earlier revocation hearing the district judge warned he would "count on" imposing 36 months if Martin reoffended.
At a later revocation hearing, Martin moved to recuse the judge based on that prior statement; the judge denied recusal, saying the prior warning was subject to change and he would consider statutory factors.
The district court found extensive noncompliance and sentenced Martin to 36 months imprisonment, consecutive to a state-court sentence.
Martin appealed, challenging (1) the denial of recusal, (2) adequacy of the district court’s explanation for the sentence, (3) consideration of certain factors (including a § 3553(a)(2)(A) reference and a new state conviction), and (4) the substantive reasonableness and decision to run the sentence consecutively.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed in all respects, concluding the judge’s comments were a permissible warning, the court adequately explained the sentence, and the variance and consecutive term were reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Prior statement promising 36 months showed bias; reasonable person would question impartiality	Statement was a warning, expressly subject to change, and based on prior proceedings, not extrajudicial bias	No recusal required; statement did not show deep-seated antagonism making fair judgment impossible
Adequacy of sentencing explanation	36-month sentence was unexplained and reflected courtroom anger	Judge provided lengthy reasons: history of violations, lack of rehabilitative progress, prior warning was meant to deter	Explanation was adequate; no procedural error in sentencing explanation
Consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors at revocation	Court improperly relied on "just punishment" (a § 3553(a)(2)(A) factor) which § 3583(e) omits	Any mention was immaterial; court primarily relied on history and characteristics per permissible factors	Even if mentioned, reference was harmless; court focused on permitted factors
Substantive reasonableness and consecutive sentence	Sentence was excessive, insufficiently considering new family ties; reliance on state conviction was improper	Court permissibly considered criminal history and supervision performance; deviation and consecutive term warranted by conduct	Sentence and decision to run consecutive were reasonable and within district court discretion

United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764 (8th Cir.) (recusal standard under § 455(a) and reasonable-person test)
Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 559 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2009) (reassignment usually rests on appearance of bias from extrajudicial sources)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (opinions formed from judicial proceedings do not warrant recusal absent deep-seated antagonism)
United States v. Williams, 624 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2010) (standards for procedural error and abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural requirements and review for reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (treatment of significant variances from Guidelines)