United States v. Nathan Minard, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8110

A Knoxville, Iowa resident reported a suspicious person who struck a vehicle while driving away; a Marion County deputy located the vehicle on a dead-end road.
Nathan Minard, the armed driver, was arrested in a vehicle containing firearms and property taken in recent burglaries; he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
The Presentence Investigation Report recommended an advisory guideline range of 120–150 months; the statutory maximum was 120 months (10 years).
At sentencing, victim Ryan McCarthy delivered a victim impact statement describing ongoing harm to his family; the district judge responded with a personal statement of empathy to the victim.
The district court imposed the statutory maximum 120-month sentence after discussing § 3553(a) factors.
Minard filed a timely Rule 35 motion alleging the judge’s empathetic remark displayed bias and sought resentencing before a different judge; the district court denied the motion, calling the remark an expression of empathy unrelated to the sentence. Minard appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district judge’s empathetic remark to the victim required recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and warranted resentencing	The judge’s comment reflected bias/partiality that could have produced a harsher sentence and required sua sponte recusal	The comment was a brief expression of empathy, not evidence of deep-seated bias; the sentence was based on proper § 3553(a) consideration	Affirmed: no recusal required; remark did not show disqualifying bias and did not affect the sentence
Whether Minard’s Rule 35 motion preserved error / warranted relief	Rule 35 relief is appropriate because the court committed clear error by failing to recuse	Rule 35 does not cover sua sponte recusal claims and Minard did not timely object at sentencing, so review is plain-error only	Affirmed: Minard did not timely raise recusal; Rule 35 is not an appropriate vehicle for sua sponte recusal claims

United States v. Burnette, 518 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2008) (timeliness and preservation of sentencing objections for appellate review)
United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2015) (party bears burden to prove judicial impartiality defect)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks during proceedings are disqualifying only if they demonstrate deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)