With power comes responsibility, moral if not legal, for its prudent and restrained exercise; and responsibility implies knowledge, experience, and sound judgment, not just good faith.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2163, 128 L.Ed.2d 886 (1994). If the government did in fact promise Bischel at the time of sentencing that it would seek a further downward departure by filing a Rule 35(b) motion and Bischel relied on that promise to his detriment, i.e., he did not appeal his sentence because he believed a further reduction was forthcoming, then we believe he would have satisfied the jurisdictional requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he would be claiming his incarceration was unconstitutional. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 509, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92
holding that due process requires that defendant be fully aware of direct consequences of guilty plea holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges holding only when it develops that the defendant was not fairly apprised of his pleas consequences can his plea be challenged under the due process clause holding that where a defendant acknowledged awareness of the consequences of his plea agreement counsels erroneous explanation of the consequences was not prejudicial holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment