the motion.
We have a short argument.
Thank you. Good afternoon to
the court. Council court staff.
Thank you for having me. I'm
honored to be here. The only
request that I am asking of
you is that the court
instructs the court to
approve the motion for
recusal. This is a simple
matter of law. This court
should instruct the trial
court under Barnes v. Harding
Harling, 3, 6, 8, F 3, the 5,
73 pinpoint site. 5, 91. As
noted on page 19 of my brief
that the recuse you say you're
asking for is a
recusal issue. This is not
only common sense. This is not
only logical, but it ensures
fairness. And it protects the
integrity of our entire
judicial system. And I'm
also asking that the court
instruct the lower court to
pursue into Barnes v. Harding
that the recusal issue is a
threshold issue that must be
resolved before the court may
consider any substantive
issue. This is not only
logical, but it also protects
the integrity of our entire
judicial system. To allow a
court who has a pending
recusal motion to rule on
other substantive issues is
illogical. It births
injustice and it defeats the
entire purpose behind 28 USC
4, 4, 5, our statute on
the recusal issue.
And I'm asking that the court
to do that. Yes. Yeah, I
filed. I filed a recusal in
the lower court. It's not
pending. There's also a pending
a rule 33 motion and the
concern is right now there's a
dearth of guidance on this
issue as to which motion the
judge should hear first.
Is a recurring holds the
motion as well?
The recusal was filed while
there was and appeal pending
before this court. has
ruled on he has no earlier
he's of us not by need now. I
came in on the speedy. Now
the district court. And I
also filed a recusal motion.
So it's made while the appeal
is pending. Yes. On the theory
that there are further
proceedings that will take
place. Yes. So the the rule
33 was filed while the appeal
was pending. And then since
there would be another issue
pending before the district
court, it's not a matter of
the district court's advisory.
Yes, mandamus petition. I'm
a little confused by that
because I thought that
mandamus is only available
when a district court has
clearly exceeded the bounds of
what's obviously its duties.
But if you're suggesting that
we should clarify something
that has never been clear. And
I'm not sure that's the right
way to do it. I'm instructed
by Schleggenhoff beholder,
which is a United States
Supreme Court opinion. 379 U.S.
104 pinpoint site. 1, 1, 10,
where they consider the use of
advisory rates and then this
advisory. And then this
advisory rates. Yes.
And then this advisory rate.
Well, I believe that it's in
part a mandamus and that you
would be instructing the
appellate court. What the
Supreme Court told me about is
it about a man?
Advisory. I appreciate the
correction.
That's a pretty important
Yes, it is. However, the the
question is, what is the
appropriate.
1, 1, 3, pinpoint site. 1, 2,
5, advisory rates are
appropriate where their
guidance is of sufficient
importance. And there's a
dearth of guidance on the
issue. Could you could you
give us the full quotation for
that, please? Without omitting
any words.
I believe that the quote is
part of the quote.
Mandamus. When the question is
sufficient importance. Yes.
I think we ever said. Grant
and you're looking for us to
grant. The that's I'm looking
at the quote. You gave us part
of the quote without
indicating that you were only
giving us part of the quote.
I believe that the part of the
quote is appropriate. I
believe that the quote is
appropriate. I think the
question is of sufficient
importance. And there's a
dearth of guidance on this
issue. I believe that the
case from Judge Kaplan's
concurrence. I'm reading from
my notes right now. Perhaps
you should go back and check
your notes later to make sure
you didn't.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I
attached. I attached the
recusal as as as an exhibit for
this. But it deals with a cut
off of cross examination
during the trial. It deals
with behavior during a
restitution hearing and it
deals with a sentencing on a
court order. So in terms of
the sufficient importance,
this court has noted that 28
USC 4, 4, 5, that its purpose
is the protection of the
public's confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary.
And further in like on the
court order, the court
further noted that the 28 USC
4, 4, 5, a is designed to
promote public confidence in
the impartiality of the
judicial process. The rule
functions as a critical
internal check to ensure the
just operation of the
judiciary. Therefore, I would
submit to this court that the
public confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary
is the most important part of
this. I'm not sure we have
time to appreciate. But let's
hear from. Thank you. Good
afternoon. And may it please
the court. My name is time
had your and I represent the
government in this case. The
government is not aware of any
circumstance in which a
petition for mandamus has been
issued. And I would like to
make a comment on this. I
would like to make a comment
on this. I would like to make
a motion here which judge
Garifas in this case deferred
resolution of until after the
criminal appeal was resolved.
This petition was filed nearly
a month before the mandate was
issued in that criminal
appeal. Unless the court has
any further questions. I
request that the government
finalize the court paper.
Thank you.