Shannon v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying portion of defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his below-Guidelines, 720-month term of incarceration on 19 counts of sexually exploiting child and one count of distributing child pornography, where Dist. Ct. gave implicit warning at sentencing hearing that defendant might receive longer sentence if he appealed his sentence and obtained remand for new sentencing hearing. Ct. of Appeals held that any kind of hint or warning that discouraged defendants from appealing sentence is not permissible and may well warrant resentencing, and Ct. directed that different judge be assigned to conduct new sentencing hearing. Dist. Ct. did not err in denying portion of habeas petition that requested that defendant be given new trial based on claim of ineffectiveness of his trial counsel for failing to call certain witnesses or on claim of alleged bias of Dist. Ct., where Dist. Ct. exchanged emails with paralegal at U.S. Attorney’s Office about scheduling defendant’s sentencing hearing. Defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of his counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses where testimony from victim, as well as certain electronic evidence that pointed to defendant as culprit, overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt on charged offenses. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s comments about scheduling sentencing hearing did not amount to due process violation.