Hazari

facts concerning the proceeding.” The same substantive standard applies to each subsection. See 12 United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The test for personal bias or prejudice in 13 section 144 is identical to that in section 455(b)(1) . . . [and] section (b)(1) simply provides a specific 14 example of a situation in which a judge’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ pursuant to 15 section 455(a).”). This standard is an objective one and asks “whether a reasonable person with 16 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 17 questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Clemens v. U.S. 18 Dist. Ct., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged “that section 19 455(a) claims are fact driven, and as a result, the analysis of a particular section 455(a) claim must 20 be guided, not by comparison to similar situations addressed by prior jurisprudence, but rather by 21 an independent examination of the unique facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue.” 22 Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1178 (quoting United States v. Bremers, 195…