Patty Jean Cyrus appeals the district court’s order directing the forfeiture to the United States of certain real property in Florence, South Carolina. * The district court found that the property was purchased with drug proceeds and that Cyrus was not, as she claimed, the bona fide purchaser of the property. Evidence before the court demonstrated that the property was instead purchased by Cyrus’ brother, Clarence Cyrus, with proceeds obtained from his distribution of cocaine and crack.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court should have recused *715 itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (2000). The district court presided at the trial and sentencing of Clarence Cyrus. At sentencing, the court commented that it believed that Cyrus and her uncle, Robert Singletary, had lied under oath when they testified that Patty Cyrus purchased the property. Cyrus claims that the court’s comment disclosed that the judge had a pre-existing bias that reasonably placed in question the court’s impartiality at the ancillary forfeiture proceeding.

Under § 455(a), any alleged bias ordinarily must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits that is based on something other than what the judge learned from participating in the case. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). Our review of the record discloses that the court’s opinion was not based on any extrajudicial source and that there existed no “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” See id. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal, and we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED