rejected plea offers ended up suffering grave consequences, even though the district court had desired to help them. Then on the day of trial, September 24, the court contrasted the case of Mouton and said Hemphill should have more time to think about the plea offer. The district court at that time specifically referenced a five-year plea deal. The district court’s comments were extensive, repeated, and unilaterally raised, and they were followed by the admonition for Hemphill to think about his life and whether to enter a plea. Se probability that Hemphill would not have entered a guilty plea absent the district court’s injection of comments that went beyond merely evaluating a properly disclosed plea agreement. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); of. United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542
holding that the improper denial of a defendants opportunity to impeach for bias is subject to harmlesserror review in which the reviewing court must determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that an appellate court may not review errors that have not been assigned by a party or a point of error holding that under harmlesserror review of rule 11 errors we  examine the facts and circumstances  of the case to discern if the error may reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor affecting defendants decision to plead guilty citation omitted holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review