As to Ferrante, we conclude that the errors committed by the district court during the plea allocution warrant reversal. We therefore vacate Ferrante’s judgment of conviction and remand with instructions that he be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea and plead anew. DISCUSSION I. Ferrante Ferrante challenges both the validity of his plea and the sentence imposed. We find that the absence of a complete inquiry into Ferrante’s mental state at the time of his plea and the district judge’s failure to warn Ferrante that he would be unable to withdraw his plea even if the judge failed to accept the recommended sentence under the plea agreement combine to “tip[ ] the scale” and warrant vacating Ferrante’s conviction. United States v. Ferrara, 954 F.2d 103, 108 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because we vacate his plea, Ferrante’s
holding that term any sentence within plea agreements waiver of right to appeal provision did not include restitution because of ambiguity holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error holding that a similar omitted warning together with ambiguity as to the plea agreements recommended sentence constituted reversible error holding that where the final judgment provided relief that was not requested  its entry constituted reversible error