Petitioner—Appellant,

versus Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CV-420 ______________________________ Before King, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: A Texas state jury convicted Jesus Jaime Jimenez of organized crime that involved violent robbery. The state trial court sentenced Jimenez to 50 years in prison. In this federal habeas case, Jimenez contends that his convic- tion was tainted by judicial bias. We deny relief.1

_____________________ 1 Jimenez made two motions that were carried with the case. First, Jimenez’s motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot because this case was decided without oral argument. Second, Jimenez’s motion to expand the COA is denied for the reasons below. No. 23-50223

I We detail (A) the facts of Jimenez’s case, (B) the facts underlying Jimenez’s judicial-bias claim, and (C) the procedural history of this case. A Jimenez was a member of the Mexican Mafia. Jimenez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d). In June 2005, Jimenez and five fellow mafiosi conspired to rob—and then violently robbed—several drug dealers of two cars (a 1995 Mustang and a 1996 Fire- bird), a Yamaha motorcycle, and some cash. Ibid. The State of Texas indicted Jimenez in a Kerr County court for organized crime in March 2006. At Jimenez’s trial in April 2006, four of the mafiosi testified for the State. Jimenez, 307 S.W.3d at 329. Based on their testimony and other evidence, the jury convicted Jimenez of engaging in organized criminal activity and sen- tenced him to 50 years in prison. Ibid. B Judge Emil Karl Prohl presided over Jimenez’s trial. The judicial-bias claim in this case stems from Judge Prohl’s relationship with the Kerr County District Attorney, Ron Sutton. Starting in 2002, Sutton began misappropriating monies collected un- der Texas’s civil asset forfeiture statute. Jimenez v. Lumpkin, No. SA-14-CA- 0420, 2023 WL 2290292, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2023). Between 2002 and 2008, Sutton misappropriated these funds to pay for travel expenses for himself, his wife, his employees, and his employees’ spouses for their attend- ance at legal conferences. Ibid. These expenses included meals, lodging, transportation, airfare, and entertainment. Ibid. From 2003 to 2007, Sutton also misappropriated these funds to pay for the travel expenses of Judge Prohl

2 No. 23-50223

and his wife. Ibid. All in, Judge Prohl received over $33,000 from Sutton for trips to Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, and California. Ibid. In July 2008, Jimenez and two co-defendants filed a complaint against Judge Prohl with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Ibid. In 2009, Judge Prohl tendered his resignation from judicial office rather than face disciplinary action from the Commission. Ibid. In 2010, Judge Prohl pleaded guilty to one count of theft by a public servant in exchange for a pro- bated two-year sentence. Ibid. In addition, he was required to pay a $2,500 fine and over $17,000 in restitution, perform 200 hours of community ser- vice, and surrender his law license. Ibid. Around the same time, Sutton pleaded guilty to two counts of misapplication of fiduciary funds and likewise received a probated two-year sentence, along with a $20,000 fine