United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-1108 SHAWN SHANNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 2:18-cv-02233-JES — James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 14, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 12, 2022 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. In a jury trial before District Judge Colin S. Bruce, petitioner Shawn Shannon was con- victed of nineteen counts of sexually exploiting a child and one count of distributing child pornography. Judge Bruce sen- tenced Shannon to 720 months (60 years) in prison. Shannon challenges those convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he did not 2 No. 21-1108 receive a fair trial before an unbiased judge. The § 2255 mo- tion was assigned to District Judge James E. Shadid, who de- nied relief. Shannon has appealed that denial. We agree with Judge Shadid that Shannon’s ineffective-as- sistance claim fails. Given the extensive and powerful evi- dence against Shannon, even if we were to assume his trial counsel’s performance was deficient, he has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any deficiency. On the judicial-bias claim, we also agree with Judge Shadid that ex parte commu- nications between Judge Bruce and staff of the U.S. Attorney’s office do not warrant a new trial on guilt or innocence. Based on those ex parte communications and comments by Judge Bruce at Shannon’s sentencing that implicitly discouraged an appeal, however, we conclude as a matter of our supervisory authority that Shannon must be resentenced before a different judge. I. Facts and Procedural History A. Trial Proceedings In June 2016, Shannon was indicted by a grand jury in the Central District of Illinois on nineteen counts of sexually ex- ploiting a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) and one count of distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1). The charges arose from Shannon’s relationship with J.W., a minor. In a jury trial before Judge Bruce, evidence showed that the two originally met when J.W. was around eight years old. They began spending more time together when J.W. was around twelve. Shannon was in his forties at the time. J.W.’s mother testified that Shannon was like “a family member” and that she had hoped he could provide a positive male role No. 21-1108 3 model for her son. She characterized Shannon as a “confi- dant” for J.W. and said that J.W. described Shannon as his best friend. J.W. helped with lighting and sound for Shannon’s gospel music group—known as the Shannons—and occasion- ally traveled with them for performances. Shannon frequently bought gifts for J.W., including a new cell phone. The government presented evidence that Shannon and J.W. exchanged thousands of text messages in the early months of 2015, when J.W. was thirteen. J.W. testified that they used a code—the letter “P”—so that Shannon would know not to text when someone else had J.W.’s phone. In many of the messages, Shannon wrote in graphic detail about masturbation, watching pornography, and other sexual activ- ity. Shannon also discussed wanting to engage in sexual ac- tivity with J.W., who testified that those comments made him feel “very awkward.” Text messages from late February 2015 showed that Shan- non and J.W. made plans to meet in Decatur, Illinois, where J.W. lived. Shannon said that he woul