the parties have agreed to a plea offer and disclosed its terms to the court, and the court’s statements made after that time); Crowell, 60 F.3d at 204. Our main concern is with the district court’s repeated description of similarly situated defendants and the consequences that befell them when they did not accept plea offers. The Government contends that the court was responding to Hemphill’s pro se motions and that the comments were meant to ensure that Hemphill was aware of the consequences of rejecting the proposed plea agreement. In context, and read in their entirety, however, the comments were coercive. The district court’s participation in plea discussions is necessarily limited in nature because such participation itself is generally coercive. See Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 159 (<HOLDING>). Thus, after a defendant has agreed to accept
holding that pressure is inherent in any involvement by a judge in the plea negotiation process holding a plea affidavit is properly incorporated in the record when the trial judge ascertains in the plea colloquy that the defendant has read has understood and acknowledges all the information contained therein holding that courts comments after the parties had reached a definite agreement that had been reduced to writing and executed by the defendant and the government all without any direct involvement by the district judge did not violate rule 11 holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him recognizing due process concerns inherent in sentencing based on false criminal history