on appeal, the Second Circuit reasoned tha r, however, addressed when jeopardy attaches in the case of a guilty or nolo contendere plea that has been offered but not yet accepted by the district court. We hold that jeopardy attaches only when the district court accepts the defendant’s guilty or nolo contendere plea. In the present case, for example, the magistrate judge could not adjudicate Bearden’s guilt or finally accept his plea; only the district court could do that. To hold that jeopardy attached when the magistrate judge accepted Bearden’s plea, on the other hand, would lead to the conclusion that the district court does not, in fact, retain the ultimate decision making responsibility regarding pleas, a conclusion that would raise Article III concerns. See Dees, 125 F.3d at 268 (<HOLDING>); Williams, 23 F.3d at 634 (same). In so
holding that bankruptcy judges are not bound by appellate ruhngs of single district judges even those from their own district holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal holding that district judges power to review magistrate judges actions prevents article iii from being undermined by such delegations recognizing that the magistrate judges actions effectively severed claims against only certain defendants holding that a judges conduct seriously undermined the publics faith that judges are as subject to the law as those who appear before them and justified removal from office