issues” in two other civil actions without identifying the orders. See Memorandum in Support of Motion for Recusal at 2 [unnumbered]. 3 . “Trial court,” in this context, may fairly be read to apply to the judge whose recusal is sought whether that judge is the trial court or, as here, the United States Magistrate Judge to whom the parties' discovery disputes were referred. Cf. Murray v. Internal Revenue Service, 923 F.Supp. 1289, 1292-94 (D.Idaho 1996) (overruling movant's objection to magistrate judge’s denial of motion for recusal). 4 . While no decision of this court or of the District of Columbia Circuit holds that the certificate required by Section 144 of Title 28 must be separate, at least one other district court has so held. United States v. Occhipinti, 851 F.Supp. at 527
holding that a sale must be both fair and reasonable in price and made in good faith holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that the district court erred in denying a  2254 petition because it had improperly resolved a disputed factual issue based solely on an affidavit filed by the petitioners attorney and there was no record evidence that corroborated the attorneys affidavit