of the Government’s evidence, criticized the Defendants for turning down plea offers from the Government, urged the Defendants to attempt “to dispose of the charges against them on a reasonable basis,” and explained to the Defendants that even if the prosecution would not recommend the sentence the Defendants desired, this should not prevent a plea because the court—not the prosecution— would determine the sentence. In sum, as the Government recognizes, the Defendants have established plain Rule 11 error. The record here thus markedly differs from cases in which judicial comments after completion of the plea agreement or a single brief remark during negotiations have been held not to constitute impermissible judicial participation in plea discussions. Compare Cannady, 283 F.3d at 644 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bierd, 217 F.3d 15, 21 (1st
holding in a suit to establish the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of stock that the judicial admission exception was not satisfied by the plaintiffs deposition testimony acknowledging that before negotiations had broken down the parties had reached an agreement with regard to price and quantity of stock and had drafted a document reflecting the agreement holding that courts comments after the parties had reached a definite agreement that had been reduced to writing and executed by the defendant and the government all without any direct involvement by the district judge did not violate rule 11 holding that in determining whether the district court had correctly calculated fraud loss the jurys acquittal  establishes only that there was reasonable doubt as to the defendants involvement with such conduct and the district court was still free indeed obliged to consider whether his involvement had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions