King v. Anderson, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60078
USDC No. 2:96-CV-181-B
JAMES ALBERT KING, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. ANDERSON ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
No. 98-60100
USDC No. 2-96-CV-180-B
JOHNNY WAYNE KING, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. ANDERSON ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
---------------------
May 25, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 98-60078 c/w 98-60100
-2-
James Albert King, Mississippi prisoner # 77235, and Johnny
Wayne King, Mississippi prisoner # 11815, appeal the district
court’s denial of their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions. The Kings
argue that the refusal of the trial judge to recuse himself
violated their constitutional right to a fair trial by an
impartial judge.
We have reviewed thoroughly the briefs, the record, and the
law and hold that the judge’s participation in the case did not
violate due process. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-05
(1997); Bradshaw v. McCotter, 796 F.2d 100, 101 (5th Cir. 1986).
The Kings also argue that their attorney was ineffective for
failing to raise the recusal issue on direct appeal. They have
failed to establish that but for counsels’ error, the outcome of
the appeal would have been different. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Pitts v. Anderson, 122 F.3d
275, 279 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --