Baker, 489 F.3d at 375 (finding harmfulness where district court’s remarks “were lengthy, repetitive, initiated and pursued by the court, and accompanied by several concurrent suggestions that the parties ‘talk again’ and ‘resolve this case’ ”). Four days later, after being admonished about similar defendants who had rejected pleas and receiving positive information about a defendant who had accepted a plea, Hemphill accepted the Government’s plea offer. This temporal proximity between the district court’s comments and the acceptance of the plea also supports a finding that the court’s comments influenced Hemphill’s plea. See Davila, 133 S.Ct. at 2149 (noting that a plea coming “soon after” judicial participation differs from one that follows a three-month delay); Pena, 720 F.3d at 574 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that there is at least a
holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days 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 holding that a guilty plea entered five days after district courts participation was a temporal proximity that supports a finding of prejudice holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that the defendants guilty plea was entered into knowingly voluntarily and intelligently