“still be in prison if you lose.” The court’s comparison of the video evidence in Williams’s ease with the evidence in Hemphill’s case also tended to suggest a belief that Hemphill, like Williams, was guilty. On September 24, when discussing the jail calls, the court indicated that it viewed the calls as very important to sentencing, even though it had not yet listened to them. The court also indicated that if there were a plea agreement, of course, there would be no need to listen to the calls. The comments about the video evidence, the jail calls, and the probability of Hemphill still being in jail in ten years all suggest the possibility that the court had already made up its mind about Hemphill’s guilt, and that therefore a plea agreement would be best. See Pena, 720 F.3d at 572 (<HOLDING>); Miles, 10 F.3d at 1141 (“By trying to
holding that the district courts curative instructions cured the governments truly improper and unfortunate comments holding that the district courts referral of a motion to suppress to a magistrate did not violate article iii so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court and explaining that congress was alert to art ill values concerning the vesting of decisionmaking power in magistrates accordingly congress made clear that the district court has plenary discretion whether to authorize a magistrate to hold an evidentiary hearing and that the magistrate acts subsidiary to and only in aid of the district court thereafter the entire process takes place under the district courts total control and jurisdiction holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding district courts comments were improper where the district courts statements connote the possibility that the court had already made a determination as to the defendants guilt in the instant offenses and preferred a guilty plea