adamantly refused to admit that the materials he had accumulated and stored were hazardous wastes, a condition of his plea agreement. See United States v. Mancinas-Flores, 588 F.3d 677, 685 (9th Cir.2009) (explaining that a court may reject a plea for lack of a factual basis where the “defendant had denied committing a specific element of the offense or protested his innocence even after demonstrating that he understood the charge”). Wyman also (a) said that he signed the agreement only because the prosecutor imposed a deadline, (b) expressed continuing confusion over the possible maximum sentence, and (c) said that he had not known the district court had the discretion to depart from what the plea agreement recommended. See Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1146-47 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because Wyman’s plea lacked a proper factual
holding that a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if the defendant understands the range of allowable punishment holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant holding statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be waived by a voluntary plea of guilty holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that a defendant is aware of the consequences of his plea for sentencing purposes and the plea is voluntary as long as he understands the length of time he might possibly receive