Dist.Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 87-month term of incarceration on bank fraud charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. committed procedural error in failing to consider his mitigation argument concerning his recent incarceration in Saudi Arabia. Defendant failed to show how his incarceration in Saudi Arabia should have been considered in order to achieve sentencing goals set forth in section 3553(a)(2), especially where: (1) there was no link between his detention in Saudi Arabia and his punishment for instant offense; and (2) defendant's jail time in Saudi Arabia was based on his conduct in Saudi Arabia. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, even though defendant argued that his attorney failed to inform him that govt. would have to prove amount of loss attributable to him by preponderance of evidence at sentencing hearing. Defendant failed to show any prejudice arising out of his counsel's advice, where: (1) he failed to establish that he would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel's advice; and (2) defendant did not dispute any facts generated at Rule 11 colloquy that established his guilt. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion for recusal under sections 455(a) and 455(b)(1) made during sentencing hearing, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. was hostile to his counsel because of Dist. Ct.'s removal in prior, unrelated case involving defendant's counsel. Dist.Ct.'s removal in prior case had nothing to do with defendant's sentencing hearing, and defendant failed to show that Dist. Ct.'s frustration with defendant's counsel was sufficient reason for recusal.
