MEMORANDUM **

Tanh Huu Lam appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Citing prior statements and rulings by the district court in his case, Lam argues that the district judge should have granted *428 his motion for recusal. We review the district court’s denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam’s motion because the motion was unsupported by evidence that would cause “a reasonable person -with knowledge of all the facts” to question the judge’s impartiality. See id. (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 804 (9th Cir. 2012) (judge’s conduct during the course of the case does not provide a basis for recusal “except in the rarest of circumstances” (internal quotations omitted)).

Lam’s motion to certify a question of law to this court is denied.

AFFIRMED.