Stone desperately claims 'crosshairs' photo of judge is not threatening:

[Gothmog]

61. The case cited is so on point that it is not even funny

Making threatening phone calls to a judge is not grounds for recusal https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1069436.html

Russell Laroy Holland appeals his conviction and sentence for mailing threatening communications and threatening the President of the United States.   He maintains that the district court judge who imposed the sentence should have recused himself after Holland obtained the judge's home telephone number and left at least one threatening message prior to his sentencing.   We hold that the district judge reasonably construed Holland's threatening phone message as an attempt to manipulate the court system which did not warrant his sua sponte recusal.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

.....The district judge found that “these [threats] are attempts to manipulate the criminal justice system.”   This finding is amply supported by the record, including Holland's behavior in the courtroom.   At the beginning of the proceedings, Holland blurted out, “The detectives told me yesterday that I threatened you [the district judge] at home.   Did I threaten you at home?”   Later, when given an opportunity to address the court, Holland stated “I am not as bad as my paperwork says․ There ain't no way I am going to look for a judge.   There ain't no damn way I am going to look for a President of the United States or anybody․ I have never hurt a victim.”   He attempted to explain his threats as part of the prison culture:  “Maybe it's because of the lifestyle, the way prison is.   Everybody threatens, ‘I am going to do this, I am going to do that.’   It has got to the point where it is natural to do that․ But as far as carrying out the threats, no.   There ain't no way.   Who would be stupid enough?”   It was not until well after Holland offered this explanation, and was subsequently removed from the courtroom by refusing to be quiet during sentencing,7 that the judge addressed the issue of Holland's threatening phone messages.

Holland directs our attention to a comment the district court made suggesting that Appellant's threats should be taken seriously.   The court stated, “As I pointed out to him, many of his crimes are violent and assaultive in nature.   So contrary to what he says, if he is given the opportunity, he has the ability to carry out his threats.”   Holland argues that this statement suggests that the district court may have taken the threats seriously, which would weigh in favor of recusal.8  However, there is compelling evidence that the district court dealt with Holland in an even-handed manner.   It considered his motions, allowed Appellant to speak freely at sentencing, and treated him in a courteous manner.   When reviewing the situation as a whole, we cannot conclude that a reasonable person in possession of all the facts would determine that the district court based its sentence on anything but the merits of the case.   Consequently, we find no plain error in the district court's decision not to recuse itself sua sponte under § 455.   The judgment is

AFFIRMED.