What is the standard of review for denial of a motion for reassignment to a three-judge panel?

Although this court has not explicitly identified the standard of review for denial of a motion for reassignment to a three-judge panel under 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-2, we have recognized a similar three-judge panel requirement as jurisdictional, see Kalson v. Paterson, 542 F.3d 281, 287 (2d Cir. 2008), thus triggering de novo review.

We review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Carlton, 534 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2008). Title 28 U.S.C. 455 states that "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or "[w]here he has a personal bias

Page 4

or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." 28 U.S.C. 455(a), (b)(1). Under 455, the relevant inquiry is "whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts, [would] entertain significant doubt that justice would be done absent recusal, or alternatively, whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would question the judge's impartiality." United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 169 (2d Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).