1. Is the D.C. Court of Appeals "overpowering " standard for determining the
indisputability of §455 (a) claims of appearance of bias that do not claim an
extrajudicial source too vague and undefined for application, and thus an
unfair standard for determining "exceptional circumstances " and a "clear
and indisputable right " to mandamus relief?

2. Must the D.C. Court of Appeals employ the "objective observer " and
and "favoritism or antagonism " standards in determining whether to issue a
writ of mandamus for Appellant 's intrajudicial claims of bias that were made
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)?

3. Must a judge consider each Motion to Disqualify separately in determining
whether a basis exist for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)?

4. Did Respondent 's conduct presented in Petitioner 's Amended Opposed
Motion to Disqualify Judge Donald W. Tunnage . and Second Opposed
Motion to Disqualify Judge Donald W. Tunnage . qualify as conduct that
might cause the average person, fully informed to reasonably question the
Respondent 's partiality, thus requiring Respondent 's disqualification from
proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)?

Whether the D.C. Court of Appeals applied an overly vague and undefined standard for determining judicial bias and mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)