context: However, the Court's last substantive ruling in the Sataki civil action was issued on July 7, 2010 -- more than two-and-a-half weeks pri- or to the filing of the instant Motion to Disqualify. Once again, Klayman offers no explanation for this delay. In such circumstances, D.C. Circuit precedent counsels that an unexplained delay of this length renders the filing of his Affidavit for disqualification untimely.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 408 F.2d 175, 183
citation_a.parenthetical: expressing "serious doubt" about the timeliness of an affidavit based on remarks made by the judge "more than two weeks before" and a law review published by the judge "more than a year" earlier
citation_a.sentence: See Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 183 (D.C.Cir. 1969) (expressing “serious doubt” about the timeliness of an affidavit based on remarks made by the judge “more than two weeks before” and a law review published by the judge “more than a year” earlier).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 385 F.Supp. 711, 712
citation_b.parenthetical: finding section 144 motion and affidavit untimely where based on events occurring "from two weeks to as far back as two months before"
citation_b.sentence: See also In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1237, 1244-45 (D.Conn.1983) (12-day delay from time movant indicated probability of recusal motion to time motion was actually filed rendered motion untimely); Bumpus v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 385 F.Supp. 711, 712 (E.D.Pa.1974) (finding section 144 motion and affidavit untimely where based on events occurring “from two weeks to as far back as two months before”).