attaches to the improper contact, and the burden shifts to the Government to establish that the contact was harmless. Remmer, 347 U.S. at 229, 74 S.Ct. 450. The Court finds that the Government has not met this burden. The Government’s burden of overcoming the presumption of prejudice is a “heavy” one. Id.; Schaff v. Snyder, 190 F.3d 513, 533-34 (7th Cir.1999). The Government must demonstrate “that there exists no ‘reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict was influenced by an improper communication.’ ” United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 141 (4th Cir.1996), quoting Stephens v. South Atl. Canners, Inc., 848 F.2d 484, 488-89 (4th Cir.1988); see United States v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th Cir.1992), quoting United States v. de Hernandez, 745 F.2d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir.1984)(<HOLDING>). Here, the Court has made a finding of fact
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding that in order to avoid a new trial under the plain error analysis the record must completely negative  any reasonable possibility of prejudice arising from such error  holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction holding plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context