United States v. Ira Isaacs

MEMORANDUM

Ira Isaacs (“Isaacs”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 659 , 97 S.Ct. 2034 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). We review de novo a denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See United States v. Price, 314 F.3d 417, 420 (9th Cir.2002). We recite the facts only as needed to explain our decision.

I. Recusal

Judge King did not err in ruling that Judge Kozinski properly recused himself from Isaacs’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a). In analyzing § 455(a) recusals, we ask “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find that a well-informed observer may reasonably have questioned Judge Kozinski’s ability to act as an impartial judge in Isaacs’s trial. Thus, we affirm Judge King’s determination that the recusal was proper under §…