government. (Id. at 16.) Smith also sought to impress upon the jurors’ minds that various nicknames associated with drug dealers had been improperly attributed to Michel. (Id. at 13.) In short, Judge Crigler observed, “the trial transcript makes clear that many of Michel’s claims about how Smith represented him during trial are patently false.” (Id. at 16.) Judge Crigler also took a step back from the specific, substantive details of Michel’s testimony and observed generally that Michel’s “demeanor and conduct while testifying” lent further weight to a finding of incredibility. (Id. at 14.) In making its own independent review of the transcript from the evidentiary hearing, this court notes that Michel was argumentative, contentious, evasive, and unresponsiv 4th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); 79 Am.Jur.2d Wills § 374 (2002) (recognizing
holding that representations made by the defendant during a plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity holding that the government must be held to a promise made to a defendant during plea negotiations if that promise induced the defendants guilty plea holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea