Holm

MEMORANDUM *

Dustin Carl Holm (“Holm”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a). We affirm.

Holm’s motion, filed thirteen months after Holm became aware that the district judge knew of the personally threatening letter, nearly sixteen months after his trial for sending a threatening letter to the courthouse was initially assigned to the district judge, and only after the district judge rejected Holm’s plea agreement was not timely. See United States v. Rogers, 119 F.3d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir.1997) (untimely when made eighteen months after becoming aware of grounds for recusal); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295-96 (9th Cir.1992) (untimely when filed eight months after party knew grounds for disqualification and after adverse ruling).

Holm’s delay cannot be excused by his acceptance of a plea agreement, during which time he contends it was reasonable to conclude recusal was unnecessary, because the plea agreement remained subject to the district judge’s approval and, therefore, Holm’s grounds for seeking recusal remained applicable. Further, the plea agreement was pending for only six months, leaving the…