¶1Peter Thompson, Thompson, Lundquist & Sicoli, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants-appellants.
¶2G.F. Peterman, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
¶3Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, HILL and ESCHBACH *, Senior Circuit Judges.
¶6In 1990, Charles Liteky, Patrick Liteky, and Father Roy Bourgeois spilled blood on federal property as part of a protest against the United States’ involvement in El Salvador. The defendants were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1361, which prohibits “willfully injurpng] ... any property of the United States....” Before the trial, the defendants requested that the district judge recuse himself, see 28 U.S.C. § 144; 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), because he had presided over Father Bourgeois’ 1983 conviction, which also related to a protest regarding United States policy toward El Salvador. But matters arising out of the course of judicial proceedings are not a proper basis for recusal. United States v. Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1540 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2857, 101 L.Ed.2d 894 (1988); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 614 F.2d 958 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888, 101 S.Ct. 244, 66 L.Ed.2d 114 (1980); Davis v. Board of School Comrs., 517 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 188 (1976). Therefore, the district court properly rejected the motion. The defendants also *911contend that the district court denied them a fair trial. After carefully reviewing the defendants’ arguments as well as the record on appeal, we have concluded that those arguments are without merit. •
¶7Conclusion
¶8We AFFIRM the convictions.