proper remedy is not to impose a sentence in violation of the plea agreement, but to allow the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea and either negotiate a new agreement, or proceed to trial. See United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934, 941 (7th Cir. 1996) (“If we rule that some provision of the plea agreement is invalid, we must discard the entire agreement and require [the defendant] and the government to begin their bargaining over again.”); United States v. Mukai, 26 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1994) (“If the court later finds the disposition in the plea agreement objectionable it should not reduce the sentence unilaterally in such cases, but rather should withdraw its acceptance of the plea agreement”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gilchrist, 130 F.3d at 1134 (<HOLDING>). 8 Bernard actually cites to U.S.S.G. §
holding specific performance of plea agreement proper remedy where defendant testified against all of his coconspirators and where court later unilaterally breached original plea agreement by imposing a ninety day term of incarceration in addition to sentence of probation that had been earlier agreed to without first providing1 defendant with opportunity to withdraw plea on the record holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state holding defendants refusal to withdraw plea when afforded opportunity by sentencing court which had reviewed presentence report and found terms of plea deal inappropriate was not entitled to specific performance of original plea holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea