validity of those prior convictions used to enhance his sentence regardless of when they occurred. Davis’ and Williams’ convictions are AFFIRMED. We VACATE their sentences and REMAND to the district court for re-sentencing. 1 . The parties stipulated that the substance was cocaine base on the second day of trial. 2 . The government argues on appeal that Richardson was not acting as a government agent. But the government cannot make use of an informer and then claim disassociation. See Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 375, 78 S.Ct. 819, 822, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958). Where, as here, the informant was clearly acting on behalf of the government before inducing a defendant, the informant is an agent of the government. See id.; United States v. Bushy, 780 F.2d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Williams did not contest the court's
holding that inducement occurring before the informant was directed or supervised by the government could not support an entrapment defense holding an inducement to commit a crime by a private party who has no government involvement does not establish an entrapment defense holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that a request for an instruction on entrapment should be refused even if there is evidence to support the defense if the defendant has denied under oath the acts constituting the crime that is charged