Whether a judge's recusal decision should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard or de novo review when reviewing potential judicial bias

No question identified. : To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito Jr., as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Petitioners James Dondero, Highland Capital Management Fund Advisors LP, The Dugaboy Investment Trust, Nexpoint Real Estate Partners LLC, and Get Good Trust respectfully request a 30-day extension of time to file their petition for writ of certiorari. This request, if granted, would extend the deadline from August 21, 2025, to September 22, 2025. The petitioners will be asking this Court to review a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed a district court’s order denying their petition for mandamus. The Fifth Circuit initially issued its panel opinion on November 5, 2024. The petitioners timely sought rehearing en banc. The hearing panel treated this as a petition for panel rehearing and issued an amended opinion and judgment on April 17, 2025. See App. A. The petitioners again sought rehearing en banc on April 30, 2025, but the Fifth Circuit denied en banc rehearing on May 23, 2025. See App. B. The Court’s jurisdiction to review the judgment rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1254. The petitioners request this extension of time for the following reasons: 1. The petitioners’ Supreme Court counsel was not involved in the underlying bankruptcy or district-court proceedings, nor was he involved in the panelstage proceedings before the court of appeals. The certiorari petition will present a question of law on which the circuits are divided,’ but it will nonetheless require 1. The petitioners will be asking this Court to resolve whether a judge’s decision not to recuse should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, as the Fifth Circuit familiarity with the extensive record in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, as well as the many orders and appeals that have arisen from this bankruptcy. 2. The petitioners’ Supreme Court counsel works as a solo practitioner and has had an unusually heavy workload since the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 23, 2025. During that time, the petitioners’ Supreme Court counsel has faced the following briefing responsibilities: ¢ Drafting and filing a petition for writ of certiorari in Veese ». Kennedy, No. 24-1221 (SCOTUS), which was filed on May 27, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an appellate reply brief in Texas Equal Access Fund v. Maxwell, No. 24-0289 (SCOTEX), which was filed on May 28, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an opening appellate brief in Umphress v. Steel, No. 25-0288 (SCOTEX), which was filed on June 2, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an amicus brief in support of rehearing en banc in HM Florida-Orl, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, No. 23-12160 (11th Cir.), which was filed on June 9, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an amended complaint in Students Against Racial Discrimination v. University of California System, No. (C.D. Cal.), which was filed on June 10, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an appellate amicus brief in Penguin Random House, LLC v. Robbins, No. 25-1819 (8th Cir.), which was filed on June 24, 2025. held, or whether a de novo standard of review should apply, as other courts have held. See, e.g., United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1216 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Our standard of review under [28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1)] is de novo.”). ¢ Drafting and filing an appellate reply brief in Crookshanks »v. Elizabeth School District, No. 25-1105 (10th Cir.), which was filed on July 7, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an appellate reply brief in Umphress v. Steel, No. 25-0288 (SCOTEX), which was filed on July 8, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an original complaint in Rodriguez v. Coeytaux, No. 3:25-cv-00225 (S.D. Tex.), which was filed on July 20, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing a response to an order to show cause in Students Against Racial Discrimination v. University of California System, No. (C.D. Cal.), which was filed on July 30, 2025. ¢ Drafting and filing an amended complaint in Hensley