612 F.2d 432, 440 (9th Cir.1979), cert, denied, 447 U.S. 925, 926, 100 S.Ct. 3019, 3020, 65 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1980). 40 . Accord, e.g., Charron v. United States, 200 F.3d at 789; cf., e.g., United States v. IBM Corp. (In re IBM Corp.), 618 F.2d 923, 932 (2d Cir.1980) (" 'Judges, while expected to possess more than the average amount of self-restraint, are still only human. They do not possess limitless ability, once passion is aroused, to resist provocation.’ ”). 41 . The cases plaintiffs cite in support of this argument (Pis. Br. at 22) are inapposite, since the factual circumstances were very different. In both cases, the judge was reversed, and upon remand, expressed his resultant personal offense to the party and counsel. United States v. Holland, 655 F.2d 44, 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10
holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that a reasonable man would be convinced that the trial judges impartiality might be questioned where the judge commented that defendant had broken faith with the court at his first trial by consenting to the judge visiting the jury room but then raising the issue on appeal and stated that he intended to increase defendants sentence because of these circumstances