requested multiple continuances and further delayed matters by re peatedly seeking the removal and replacement of counsel. Delays resulting from the repeated replacement of counsel are the fault of the defendants, not the government. See Brillon, 556 U.S. at 94, 129 S.Ct. 1283. Nor can the delay resulting from the withdrawal of the plea is be attributed to the government. The time a trial is delayed due to the entry and subsequent withdrawal of a guilty plea is not chargeable to the government and does not result in a speedy trial violation. See United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966) (permitting retrial despite delay resulting from guilty plea being set aside because of defective indictment); United States v. Doria, 891 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Herman, 576 F.2d 1139, 1145
holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that the government was not responsible for delay from withdrawal of guilty plea holding that a criminal defendant must provide a fair and just reason to support withdrawal of his guilty plea even when that plea has not yet been accepted by the district court holding that prosecution is generally entitled to specific performance or withdrawal of plea following defendants breach but because the government waived its right to withdrawal of plea only the possibility of specific performance remained holding that the defendant has the burden of proving a fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea