The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit re jected a claim of judicial bias

Charise Shanell Stone was indicted for orchestrating a scheme to defraud mortgage companies. During trial, Stone made a motion for recusal based on the district court’s ownership of stock in some of the companies, which the court denied. After she was convicted, the district court sentenced Stone to sixty months’ imprisonment and ordered her to pay approximately $2.3 million in restitution. Stone appeals the district court’s restitution calculation, determination of loss for purposes of sentencing, and denial of her motion for recusal. We affirm…

The claim

 At trial, Stone filed a largely unintelligible motion for recusal,1 providing the following grounds:

1. Defendant [sic] rights to due process have been violated, in light of the Court’s performance and quest for defense to waive rights.

2. A conflict of interest. The Court has unconsentually [sic] appointed unwarranted counsel, to which alleged defendant’s estate respectfully declines the ‘offer’ to contract thereto. Affirmative.

Further, be it known, as the Court is the arbitrator, to which alleged defendant has no ‘beneficial ties’, the same sits in consort with the accuser(s).

3. The Court has willfully dishonored the ‘Constitutional Challenge’ as set forth in Law and is HEREBY requested to respectfully RECUSE
himself Therefore, let the record show, the hands of Hilton, Claude dba Judge Claude M. Hilton are in fact ‘unclean’. Affirmative.