(motion for recusal); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir.2009) (motion for reconsideration). We will address each in turn. A. Akel filed his motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455, arguing that two provisions of § 455 supported his position. The first was § 455(a), which requires a federal judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Akel argued that the judge could not rule impartially on his § 2255 motion because he had given “improper and repeated Allen charges” to the jury at Akel’s trial and had sentenced Akel as an Armed Career Criminal “despite knowing he couldn’t per the jury verdict.” See generally Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02, 17 S.Ct. 154, 157, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896) (<HOLDING>); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The second provision that
holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that a trial court may instruct a deadlocked jury to keep deliberating holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme