The court held that no indictable conspiracy existed where the only parties were the defendant and government agents or informants, and that the district court had abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the person with whom the defendant purportedly conspired was actually a government agent. The court, moreover, observed that “[i]f Barboa pled guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” Id. at 1423 n. 3 (quoting Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2103, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974). See also United States v. Ruizdel Valle, 8 F.3d 98 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). We note, moreover, that every circuit court
holding that defendant should have been allowed to withdraw guilty plea postsentence in part on basis that the same district judge ruled that similar facts in codefendants case did not constitute crime 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 that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea holding that no constitutional violation occurred where state prosecutor did not allow defendant to withdraw guilty plea and reinstated additional charges after defendant violated plea agreement by failing to testify truthfully at codefendants trial