before a different judge. This is only done where special circumstances warrant it, that is, where we are persuaded that the original judge would have substantial difficulty in putting out of her mind her previously expressed views, or where reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice. United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 10 (2d Cir.1977) (in banc) (per curiam). No special circumstances here suggest reassignment before a different judge and we decline therefore to take such action. Of course, on remand, the government cannot withdraw its § 5K1.1 motion, as that action under the circumstances would be a violation of defendant’s due process rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28-29, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2103, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Finally, as we have already concluded that
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding that it was not constitutionally permissible for the state to respond to defendants invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo  holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial