made under oath and inconsistent with his trial testimony. “[P]rior inconsistent statements by a witness are not hearsay and are competent as substantive evidence if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the prior inconsistent statement was given under oath at a ‘trial, hearing, or other proceeding.’” United States v. Wilson, 806 F.2d 171, 175-76 (8th Cir.1986) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A)). In Wilson, we held a prior inconsistent statement given by a witness under oath during a grand jury proceeding could be used as substantive evidence. Id. This same rationale applies to other statements made under oath, including a statement made at a plea colloquy. See United States v. Meza-Urtado, 351 F.3d 301, 303 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Cervantes contends the district court erred
holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control holding sworn statements made during a codefendants plea colloquy were properly received as substantive evidence pursuant to fedrevid 801d1a holding that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by his representations made during a plea colloquy