Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 31-14-2 (speeding).  Defendant claimed that the trial judge had predetermined his guilt and that the judge should have recused himself.  The District Court held that the accusation that the judge had predetermined the defendant’s guilt was not supported by the record and that the record indicated that the judge was only attempting to advise the pro se defendant of his legal rights.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.