The government appeals the district court’s dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct of an indictment against Wesley Jacobs and Santokh Singh Takhar. The government contends that (1) no prosecuto-rial misconduct occurred and therefore the district court lacked a legal or factual basis for its dismissal, and (2) if reversed the case should be reassigned to another judge. We agree and we reverse and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The indictments at issue here result from the Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to prevent the use of the drug chlo-ramphenicol in animals that produce food. As part of this effort, in 1984 the FDA sent one of its agents, Robert Anderson, to investigate large purchases of chlorampheni-col made by the animal hospital which Jacobs and Takhar owned and operated. Based on the evidence Anderson discovered, in 1986 the grand jury indicted Jacobs and Takhar for mislabeling and adulterating chloramphenicol in violation of 21 U.S. C. §§ 331(k) and 333(a). In addition, the grand jury charged Jacobs with making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because he allegedly lied to Anderson.

On February 10, 1987, just an hour before the scheduled start of open court proceedings before Judge Price, appellees served the government with a “Motion to Determine Admissibility of Evidence.” The government objected to the motion’s timeliness because the motion (1) should have been filed by the January 16th pretrial deadline for defense motions, and (2) would have the effect of a suppression motion due to its late filing. During an in-chambers conference held before the beginning of the public proceedings, Judge Price rejected the timeliness objection and deferred ruling on the motion’s substance until the end of the government’s case. At this conference, Judge Price also stated that if he granted the motion, he would also “grant a motion of acquittal.”

During Takhar’s counsel's opening statement, the government objected because contrary to Judge Price’s pretrial orders, he discussed the background of the chlo-ramphenicol. In the jury’s presence, Judge Price responded:

Later the same day, Jacobs’ counsel, Eric Fogderude, cross-examined Anderson. During this examination, Fogderude handed FDA inspector Anderson a copy of the first page of his notes, and asked if the copy was complete. When Anderson re *654 plied the copy was incomplete, Judge Price ordered government counsel, D. Bruce Pearson, to read through every document personally, after which he berated Pearson:

On February 11th, during an in-chambers hearing held before the start of open court proceedings, Fogderude admitted that he had made a mistake and that the government had provided a complete copy of Anderson’s notes. Despite Fogderude’s admission, Judge Price continued to complain about government counsel: “Every U.S. Attorney that appears in my court [relies] on somebody else to do [his] work.” After this complaint, Judge Price stated that he would hold the government to its representation of complete discovery production.

More important, during this in-chambers hearing, Judge Price told Takhar’s counsel, George McKray, that his client should win. The judge remarked:

(emphasis added).

After the in-chambers hearing, government counsel on redirect examination asked Anderson to identify a document. When Anderson stated that the document was incomplete, Judge Price invited and then granted a motion to dismiss “on the basis of misconduct of government counsel.” Then Judge Price left the courtroom. Immediately after the dismissal, Anderson and government counsel discovered that Anderson was mistaken; in fact, the document was complete. The government informed the court’s law clerk of the error within two minutes after Judge Price left the courtroom and asked for the Judge to return. However, the judge replied the trial was over and a motion to reconsider should be filed if the government had anything to say.

Later that day, the government filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 25, 1987 Judge Price denied the motion because government counsel should have known during trial “of the truth or falsity of Anderson’s statement,” and because “[t]he defendant’s jeopardy has been attacked.” On March 24, 1987 the government filed a notice of appeal. 1

JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3781 over government appeals in criminal cases, except when the double jeopardy clause bars further prosecution. United States v. Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 677 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 890 , 107 S.Ct. 290 , 93 L.Ed.2d 264 (1986). When *655 a defendant moves for a mistrial, double jeopardy attaches only where the prosecutor intended to “goad” the defendant into making a mistrial motion. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2089 , 72 L.Ed.2d 16 (1982).

Here, no evidence shows that the prosecutor intended to “goad” the appellees into making a mistrial motion. Instead, the evidence indicates that appellees made the motion to dismiss because Judge Price invited them to do so. Thus, the double jeopardy bar does not apply. For this reason, this court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 .

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may dismiss an indictment on any of three grounds: (1) due process, (2) inherent supervisory powers (protecting the integrity of the judicial process), and (3) statutory grounds. However, while we review a due process dismissal de novo, United States v. Simpson, 813 F.2d 1462 , 1465 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 233 , 98 L.Ed.2d 192 (1987), we review both an inherent supervisory dismissal and a statutory dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Id.; see United States v. Nat’l Medical Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910 (9th Cir.1986).

Because of the different standards of review, we must decide as a preliminary matter on what grounds the district court granted the dismissal. We find that the district court grounded its dismissal on its inherent supervisory powers. Apparently, Judge Price dismissed this case on the basis of his perception that the government neglected to comply with his discovery order to produce complete copies of all documents. A dismissal rooted in a failure to obey a discovery order lies within a court’s supervisory powers. See United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.1985) (noted that this court recognized supervisory power to dismiss for violation of discovery orders in United States v. Roybal, 566 F.2d 1109, 1110-11 (9th Cir.1977)).

DISCUSSION

A. Dismissal of the Indictment

The government argues that the district court erred when it dismissed the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. We agree.

Because the drastic step of dismissing an indictment is a disfavored remedy, United States v. Rogers, 751 F.2d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir.1985), a district court may properly dismiss an indictment only if the prosecutorial misconduct (1) was flagrant, United States v. Carrasco, 786 F.2d 1452, 1455 (9th Cir.1986), and (2) caused substantial prejudice to the defendant. Rogers, 751 F.2d at 1077 . In cases involving prose-cutorial misconduct which is neither flagrant nor prejudicial, a district judge can still sanction the misconduct, but the sanction chosen must be proportionate to the misconduct. See generally United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1470 (9th Cir.1984).

In short, absent flagrant and prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, this court will find that the district court’s dismissal of an indictment is an abuse of its discretion. For example, in Gatto, 763 F.2d at 1050 , the district court dismissed an indictment because the government failed to abide by the court’s discovery orders. However, this court held that the district judge abused his discretion in dismissing the indictment because it found neither violation of a discovery order pursuant to Fed.R. Crim. P. 16, nor any other violation. Id. at 1050-51 . Similarly, in Cadet , the district court dismissed the indictment after the government refused to comply with the court’s discovery order. 727 F.2d at 1454 . Again, this court determined the district court abused its discretion in imposing a disproportionate sanction for violation of a partially invalid discovery order. Id. at 1470 .

Here, when Anderson testified on February 11th that the document was incomplete, Judge Price dismissed the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct because he believed the government had not complied with court orders of complete discovery production. In fact, the government com *656 plied fully with the court’s discovery orders. Thus, the only possible prosecutorial misconduct during the trial occurred when the prosecutor failed to correct Anderson’s mistaken testimony immediately; instead, the prosecutor corrected the testimony after two minutes. This two minute delay neither amounted to a flagrant act of pros-ecutorial misconduct nor resulted in prejudice to the appellees. Since the sanction imposed was disproportionately harsh in relation to the alleged misconduct, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment and we must reverse.

B. Reassignment to Another Judge

The government argues that if this court reverses the indictment then this court should exercise its inherent authority to assign this case to a different judge. 2 We agree and remand to the district court with instructions that the case be reassigned to another judge according to the local rules. 3

Although this type of relief is rare, there is no doubt in this circuit as to our authority to order a case reassigned. Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 450 , 98 L.Ed.2d 390 (1987). Reassignment of a case to another judge depends on three factors:

Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 813 F.2d 917, 921 (9th Cir.1987). The first two of these factors are of equal importance, and a finding of either one of them would support a remand to a different judge. United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988 , 107 S.Ct. 580 , 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986).

Here, while we are confident that Judge Price would put out of his mind his previously expressed views upon remand in light of this opinion (therefore the first factor would not apply), we hold that we must order reassignment to preserve the appearance of justice. Here, the trial judge has (1) dismissed an indictment summarily and erroneously; (2) refused to reassemble the jury when just two minutes later the mistake was discovered; (3) denied the motion for reconsideration after the government had proven no misconduct; (4) allowed the *657 defendants to file an untimely motion to dismiss; (5) criticized the government’s handling of the case in the jury’s presence; and (6) offered strategic advice to one defendant’s counsel on how to win his case. On these facts, the gains made for the appearance of justice by reassignment to another judge will outweigh the duplication of time and effort.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions that this case be reassigned in accordance with local court rules.

. Although the appellees contend this appeal is untimely under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), we find the government's notice of appeal filed on March 24, 1987 was timely because it was within thirty days of the district court’s February 25, 1987 denial of the timely motion to reconsider. United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682 , 686 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986).

. The government also argues that if we reverse this case, we can disqualify Judge Price on the basis of 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 , 455. We disagree. These statutory provisions require such virulent personal bias or prejudice against the attorney as to amount to a bias against the party. See United States v. Burt, 765 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th Cir.1985). Here, we find no bias against the government’s attorney so virulent as to require recusal under these sections.

. Subsequent to oral argument, we asked the parties for further briefing on two issues: (1) whether the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 preempted this court’s authority to reassign a case; and (2) in reassigning a case, what is the appropriate method of reassignment — i.e., should the case go to the Chief Judge of the district for reassignment. On the first issue, we find that the legislative history clearly indicates no intention to preempt the court of appeals' traditional power to reassign. See Report "Constitutional Issues Raised By the Proposed Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1979,” 125 Cong.Rec. 30045, 30049 (“abuse of judicial power, bias, or other conditions or conduct of judges are reachable only as they occur in particular cases with respect to litigants who have standing to raise these matters. The bill under consideration, by excepting out these cases, would not alter an appellate court’s supervisory powers_”). On the second issue, we find that we have previously used any of three permissible methods — (1) reassignment through .the chief judge of the district court, see Cord v. Smith, 338 F.2d 516, 526 (9th Cir.1964), mandate clarified, 370 F.2d 418 (9th Cir.1966); (2) reassignment through the clerk of the district court, Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 450 , 98 L.Ed.2d 390 (1987); or (3) reassignment through the district judge, see United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988 , 107 S.Ct. 580 , 93 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986).