Legal Opinion
United States v. Bailey
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided May 14, 1999No. 97-3432PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant, F. Lee Bailey (“Bailey”) says that 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1) required the district court judge, Judge Paul, to recuse himself in the proceedings below. Bailey also disagrees with the district court’s determination of reasonable expenses incurred as part of Bailey’s representation of a criminal defendant. Judge Paul was not required to recuse himself, but we see one significant error in the district court’s determination of expenses. So we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
Background
In 1994, Bailey — a lawyer — agreed to represent Claude Duboc (“Duboc”). Du-boc…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. William C. PageCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v. Hillsborough Holdings Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- United States v. Armando Balbino Ramos, Evaristo RamosCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Harvey Kelly SimsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- Wu v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- In Re: Kensington International Limited and Springfield Associates, Llc, in Re: D.K. Acquisition Partners, L.P. Fernwood Associates, L.P. And Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, in Re: Usg CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Dwayne A. BergerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- Tripp v. Executive Office of the PresidentDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- United States v. MillerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.