definite and particular to convince a reasonable person that bias exists; simple conclusions, opinions, or rumors are insufficient.” United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331, 1339 (7th Cir.1993). The factual allegations must fairly support the charge of bias or impartiality and must be specific — including definite times, places, persons, and circumstances. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d at 1199. And while a court must assume the truth of the factual assertions, it is not bound to accept the movant’s conclusions as to the facts’ significance. Id. at 1199-1200. Moreover, “[bjecause the statute is heavily weighed in favor of recusal, its requirements are to be strictly construed to prevent abuse.” Sykes, 7 F.3d at 1339; see also United States v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Unlike a motion to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §
holding  2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed holding that  144 affidavits should be strictly construed against the affiant and that movants bear a substantial burden to show actual partiality holding that in presence of any doubt a penal statute is to be strictly construed holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed