United States v. Sonny Austin Ramdeo, 705 F. App'x 839

Sonny Ramdeo, pro se, asked the district court for a judicial recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to waive his "public safety factor" designation so he could access rehabilitative programs.
The district court denied the initial motion and, in January 2017, denied reconsideration because it lacked "sufficient information or knowledge" to make the requested recommendation.
Ramdeo appealed the denial and, for the first time on appeal, alleged the district judge should have recused for bias.
Ramdeo argued the BOP must consider judicial recommendations (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)), cited his in-custody good behavior, completion of a drug education course, and a magistrate judge’s earlier finding that he was not dangerous.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded no statute, regulation, or case required the district court to issue the requested recommendation and noted broad BOP discretion over classification and program eligibility.
The court also held Ramdeo failed to show extrajudicial bias or pervasive judicial bias and did not follow recusal procedures; thus he did not meet the plain-error standard for recusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by declining to recommend that the BOP waive Ramdeo's "public safety factor" designation	Ramdeo: court should have recommended removal because BOP must consider judicial recommendations and his conduct supports it	Government/District Court: no legal duty exists requiring such a recommendation; BOP has broad discretion over classification	Affirmed: no authority required the court to make the requested recommendation; denial stands
Whether the district judge should have recused for bias	Ramdeo: judge showed animosity via adverse rulings and favorable comments about his counsel, implying bias	Government: adverse rulings and judicial conduct in case do not establish extrajudicial or pervasive bias; recusal procedures not followed	Affirmed: Ramdeo failed to show extrajudicial bias or pervasive bias and did not meet plain-error standard

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1976) (Congress gave prison officials broad discretion over classification and program eligibility; limited due process protections)
Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2000) (certain BOP decisions are within BOP discretion and not subject to judicial review under § 3625)
United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564 (5th Cir.) (discussing standards for reviewing district court non-binding recommendations)
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (recusal required only for personal/extrajudicial bias; adverse rulings insufficient)
Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876 (11th Cir. 1988) (bias must arise from extrajudicial source unless rare pervasive judicial conduct exists)
United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703 (11th Cir. 1998) (plain-error review for forfeited recusal claims is a "daunting obstacle")
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (elements required to show plain error)
United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) (forfeited recusal claims reviewed for plain error)
Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983) (rulings adverse to a party do not constitute pervasive bias)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate courts generally do not consider arguments raised first in a pro se reply brief)