United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2019–2023 · …recusal cannot be based on 'unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation. at p. 1293 ⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2020–2025 · 2 courts · …unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation, at p. 1293 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Scott v. Blanton
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis ... recusal cannot be based on 'unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Daniels v. Inch
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis . . . recusal cannot be based on 'unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SHOUSE v. ROSSIGNOL
M.D. Ga. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational[,] or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dan Bogdan
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999)(quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DIXIT v. FAIRNOT
M.D. Ga. · 2023 · confidence medium
The Court must consider the factual basis of the Motion to Recuse, which “cannot be based on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Group Management Corp.
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (cites omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daker v. Dozier
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
Moreover, as Plaintiff has been informed by the Eleventh Circuit, “ ‘[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis’ and not simply ‘be based on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” Daker v. United States, 787 F. App’x 678 , 680–81 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999)) (internal quotations omitted); see also Daker v. Warren, 779 F. App’x 654 , 658 (11th Cir. 2019) (“The district court judge was not required to recuse without some evidence that he had a disqualifying personal bias again…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Corbin v. Prummell, Jr.
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Additionally, “Section 455(a) requires recusal when the objective circumstances create an appearance of partiality.” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Group Management Corp.
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2022 · confidence medium
“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (cites omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Larry v. O'Conner
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Markle v. Markle
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ain Jeem, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Notably, however, a judge should not recuse from an assigned case based upon “unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876, 878 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citation omitted). 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit decided prior to Primarily, Puckett repeats the same arguments throughout his motion r…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reinoehl v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
N.D. Ind. · 2022 · confidence medium
In sum, Ms. Reinoehl’s arguments for recusal consist of either ‘“unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation,”’ United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)), or assertions about the validity of the court’s rulings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McBride v. Guzina
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Ga. Jan. 19, 2010); United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999) (charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis and not on unsupported irrational or highly tenuous speculation).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Croft (2×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999); Weatherhead v. Globe Int’l Inc., 832 F.2d 1226 , 1227 (10th Cir. 1987) (“Allegations under [section 455] need not be taken as true.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Onishi v. Chapleau
N.D. Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
In sum, Mr. Onishi’s arguments for recusal consist of either “unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation,” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting In re United States, 666 F.2d at 694 ), or argue about the validity of the court’s rulings.
cited Cited as authority (rule) HRN Group, LLC
Bankr. N.D. Ga. · 2019 · confidence medium
“Recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (cites omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waseem Daker v. USA
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
“A charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis” and not simply “be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Imperato v. Navigators Insurance Company
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
And “[rjecusal cannot be based on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).
cited Cited "see" Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc.
S.D. Ala. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“Recusal cannot be based on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.”) (quotation omitted).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Donovan G. Davis, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (“conjecture and speculation” are insufficient to warrant recusal or an evidentiary hearing).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James v. United States
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994); see also Daker v. United States, 787 F. App’x 678 , 680–81 (11th Cir. 2019) (“’A charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis’ and not simply ‘be based on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.’”) (quoting United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cuyler v. Bay Pines VA Health Care Systems
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations and statements do not objectively create significant doubt as to the undersigned’s fairness and impartiality.1 Plaintiff fails to offer facts, as opposed to mere speculative allegations, that evidence partiality.2 The filing of a judicial qualifications complaint alone does not mandate recusal.3 To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with adverse prior rulings 1 See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000); see also In re Moody, 755 F.3d 891 , 894–95 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). 2 See United States v. Cerceda, …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MAJORITY FORWARD v. BEN HILL COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
M.D. Ga. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
A “judge, having been assigned to a case, should not recuse [herself] on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation.” United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Migliozzi v. Lee Memorial Health System
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988); see also United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (requiring recusal when the objective circumstances create an appearing of partiality).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Cerceda
94-5017.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sep 15, 1999.
188 F.3d 1291
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________ FILED No. 94-5017 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _____________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT D. C. Docket No. 95-915-CR-WCO 11/19/98 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ANGEL CERCEDA, Defendant-Appellant, ****** --------------- No. 95-4610 ---------------- D.C. Docket No. 91-698-CR-WJZ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

COURTNEY RICARDO ALFORD, a.k.a. “Rickey,” EDWARD BERNARD WILLIAMS, a.k.a. “Bernard,” NATHANIEL DEAN, Defendants-Appellees.

******

--------------- No. 95-4611 --------------- D.C. Docket No. 91-704-CR-NCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

HECTOR FERNANDEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

******

--------------- No. 95-4612 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-750-CR-NCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

JESUS E. CARDONA, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 95-4613 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-6023-CR-JAG

[*2]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

CARLOS HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

******

--------------- No. 95-4617 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 91-681-CR-NCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

ADOLFO MESTRIL, a.k.a. “El Gordo,” JOSE HERMINIO BENITEZ, a.k.a. “William Muniz,” a.k.a “Emilio,” HERIBERTO ALVAREZ, ELPIDIO, PEDRO IGLESIAS-CRUZ, a.k.a. “Budweiser,”

Defendants-Appellees.

[*3]

****** --------------- No. 95-4618 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 91-6180-CR-JAG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

MINNIE RUTH WILLIAMS, RALPH W. CORKER, Defendants-Appellees.

****** --------------- No. 95-4626 --------------- D.C. Docket No. 90-741-CR-SH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

HIRAM MARTINEZ, JR., Defendant-Appellee.

[*4]

****** --------------- No. 95-4628 --------------- D.C. Docket No. 91-915-CR-EBD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

ANGEL CERCEDA, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 95-4629 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-39-CR-LCN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

DIOGENES PALACIOS, Defendant-Appellee.

[*5]

****** --------------- No. 95-4630 ----------------

D. C. Docket No. 92-230-CR-SM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

FRED DE LA MATA, MANUEL A. CALAS, OSCAR CASTILLA and ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ, Defendants-Appellees.

****** --------------- No. 95-4631 -------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-301-CR-UU-B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

STEVEN JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 95-4632 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-573-CR-DLG

[*6]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

FRANCISCO JOSE ARIAS, GUSTAVO JAVIER PIRELA-AVILA, Defendants-Appellees.

****** --------------- No. 95-4633 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 93-1-CR-DLG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

ENRIQUE ACOSTA, MILCIADES JIMINEZ, Defendants-Appellees.

[*7]

****** --------------- No. 95-4634 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 93-31-CR-DLG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

CARLOS A. ZAPATA, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 95-4635 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 93-72-CR-SM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

JOSE MICHAEL VILARINO, Defendant-Appellee.

[*8]

****** --------------- No. 95-4659 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 91-413-CR-WDF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

VICTOR LONG, ISRAEL AEL, MIGUEL CAMPOS, JOSE VISOZO, NARCISCO SUAREZ, and OSCAR KARIN, a.k.a. MAS, Defendants-Appellees.

****** --------------- No. 95-5244 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 91-8033-CR-MARCUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

JAVIER BONILLA, Defendant-Appellee.

[*9]

****** --------------- No. 95-5298 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-39-CR-Nesbitt

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

DIOGENES PALACIOS, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 95-5369 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-117-CR-Moreno

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

ZAIDA FATIMA BORGE, a.k.a. Gorda, Defendant-Appellee.

****** - --------------- No. 95-5566 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 93-319-CR-EBD

[*10]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

FRANCIS JOSEPH BRADLEY, a.k.a. Frank Bradley, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 96-4584 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 93-31-CR-GRAHAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

JAIME A. DURANGO, Defendant-Appellee, ****** --------------- No. 96-5043 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 92-117-CR-FAM

[*11]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

ZAIDA FATIMA BORGE, a.k.a. Gorda, Defendant-Appellee.

****** --------------- No. 96-5067 --------------- D. C. Docket No. 91-698-CR-WJZ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

NATHANIEL DEAN, EDWARD BERNARD WILLIAMS, Defendants-Appellees.

--------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ---------------

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion April 23, 1998, 139 F.3rd 847)

(November 19, 1998) Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.*

[*12]

B Y T H E C O U R T:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

_______________________ *Judge Stanley Marcus has recused himself and will not participate.

Senior Judge Paul H. Roney may participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).

[*13]