Whether a district judge impermissibly blends judicial and prosecutorial roles by urging investigation and then presiding over the trial, whether an appellate court can determine harmless error by evaluating only the government's case strength, and whether a court violates due process by imposing restitution via ex parte communication without defendant notice

1. Whether a district judge impermissibly blends the judicial and prosecutorial roles such that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), where he repeatedly “urge[s] the government to continue their investigation” and “pursu [e]” certain “corrupt doctors” and then presides over the ensuing trial. 2. Whether an appellate court may determine that an error at trial was harmless by evaluating only the strength of the government’s case and not the potential effect of the error on the jury. 3. Whether a district court violates a criminal defendant’s due process rights when it imposes an $8 million restitution order based on the prosector’s off-thedocket email to chambers , without notifying the defendant when or how he should respo nd, and without even waiting the 14 days local rules provide for responses to motions filed on the public docket. (II)