Whether an objective or subjective test is used to determine if a communication constitutes a true threat is not settled law in the Ninth Circuit, see United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961-62 (9th Cir.2007) (recognizing conflict in Ninth Circuit case law); United States v. Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2005) (same), although other circuits apply an objective test, see United States v. Davila, 461 F.3d 298, 304-05 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Koski, 424 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Fuller, 387 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir.2004); United States v. Zavrel, 384 F.3d 130, 136 (3d Cir.2004).


SEE ALSO

E. Recusal/Disqualification of Judges
A judge "may be" disqualified where she or he “has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Judicial rulings in the present
or former proceedings are not enough to demonstrate bias unless they “reveal such
a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.”
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see also Pesnell v. Arsenault,
543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 958
(9th Cir. 2007); 
SOURCE: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/section_1983.pdf

SEE ALSO

"If this Court were to take the extraordinary step of allowing
USAPA to raise judicial hostility for the first time on appeal, it must
dismiss because USAPA does not identify any extra-judicial factors.
[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis
for a bias or partiality motion. Almost invariably, they are
proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Even hostile
judicial remarks made during the course of a trial will not
ordinarily support a challenge to the judge's partiality.
United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 958 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation,
alteration and quotation marks omitted) (relying on Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). “As with § 144, the provisions of
§ 455(a) & (b)(1) require recusal only if the bias or prejudice stems
from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made
during the course of the proceeding.” 
http://www.cactuspilot.org/Plaintiff_Appeal_Answering_Brief_27OCT09.pdf

SEE ALSO

"see also United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961-62 (9th Cir. 2007) (suggesting a
specific intent to threaten involves the determination of the defendant’s subjective
intent and not the determination of intent applying an objective standard)."
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2009/0910/20090910_064105_cottrell.pdf

SEE ALSO

An indictment is sufficient if it: (i) ensures defendant has sufficient notice of charge against which he must defend and (ii) protects him from double jeopardy. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding indictment sufficiently alleged materiality and intent to defraud when read as a whole). An indictment that utilizes the language of the statute itself will be deemed sufficient, if the words of the statute "fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished" and "must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence." Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18; see also United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Severino, 316 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir. 2003) (Indictments are "legally sufficient if, as a whole, they adequately apprised the defendant of the charges against him."))
SOURCE: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/criminal-law-acquittal/10595845-1.html
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
By Langer, Anne,Parnes, Jonathan
Publication: The American Criminal Law Review
Date: Tuesday, April 1 2008
BACKUP COPY @ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:w3c4QXMymEUJ:www.allbusiness.com/legal/criminal-law-acquittal/10595845-1.html+see+also+United+States+v.+Sutcliffe,+505+F.3d+944,+961+%289th+Cir.+2007%29+%28quoting+United+States+v.+Severino,+316+F.3d+939&cd=2&hl=en

MASTER SEARCH: 

http://www.google.com/search?q=see+also+United+States+v.+Sutcliffe%2C+505+F.3d+944