Phosavan Khamnivong was convicted of drug trafficking, kidnapping, and firearms offenses in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Following his conviction and sentence, Khamnivong filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. He argued that the presiding judge, Ralph R. Beistline, should have recused himself from the trial, resentencing, and habeas proceedings due to an undisclosed personal relationship with a witness in the case. The district court denied the motion, leading Khamnivong to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the § 2255 motion de novo and the judge's decision not to recuse for abuse of discretion. To determine if recusal was required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the panel applied the objective standard: whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court conducted an independent examination of the unique facts and circumstances. It found that Judge Beistline properly exercised his discretion in determining that his minimal contacts with the witness would not jeopardize his impartiality. Consequently, the court held that the judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to recuse himself, and therefore did not err in determining that the conviction and sentence were not imposed in violation of federal law.
Khamnivong's convictions and sentence remain valid, and he is denied relief from his federal prison term. The decision reinforces that minimal contacts between a judge and a witness do not automatically trigger a duty to recuse under the reasonable person standard. The case is suitable for decision without oral argument and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download