appeal that order. Having reviewed plaintiffs pleadings, this court believes that the time expended on their preparation was reasonable. Most puzzling is the district court’s award of only 3 of the 3.2 hours requested for work performed in 2001. The Commissioner did not specifically object to any of the time spent in 2001, nor did the district court explain the reduction. Perhaps the court was adjusting for the mathematical error the Commissioner made when she sought a total reduction of 33.8 hours but listed particular reductions that totaled only 33.6 hours. In any event, we see no basis for the reduction. In summary, we have independently reviewed the fees sought and find them well within the bounds of reasonableness. See also Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1538 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court’s fee orders
holding that district judges failure to recuse was harmless error where the underlying question was patently clear and so there was no need to vacate the district courts decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction despite a remand to the bankruptcy court for more specific findings of fact and for further proceedings to apply the correct burden of proof holding that remand not necessary although district court failed to apply correct legal standard because no dispute as to underlying facts and interests of judicial economy and efficiency support deciding matter holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding that no remand is necessary  where no additional facts need be developed and any district court decision of the issue would be reviewed de novo