criticized defendant’s objections to Neil Spector, who had been appointed to represent defendant; (4) referred to Hicks, in a different case, as “Smiley” and to another assistant public defender as “Laughing Boy”; (5) had a reputation for racial and sexual intolerance and had previously been censured for offensive comments to a female attorney; (6) made derogatory comments to both defendant and Hicks during the motion to suppress; and (7) stated, during defendant’s testimony during the motion to suppress, that he was not getting the facts from defendant. The facts that Judge Cieslik ruled against defendant’s motion to vacate the case assignment and that he told Bomba that the motion was baseless are not reasons to grant a motion for substitution for cause. See Vance, 76 Ill. 2d at 178 (<HOLDING>); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
holding issues not ruled upon by the trial judge are not preserved for appellate review holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion