or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770. We consider the entire record in determining whether these requirements have been met. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 65-66, 122 S.Ct. 1043. With these principles in mind, we turn to the case at hand. IV. In this case, the Government concedes that the district court repeatedly violated Rule ll’s prohibition on judicial participation in plea negotiations, that this participation was error, and that the error was plain. The record clearly demonstrates that the district court initiated plea discussions, advised the Defendants that they might “be better off pleading to the indictment,” suggested that they would likely receive life sentences if they went to trial, commented on the amount and wei r.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778, 783
holding that a valid guilty plea waives a statute of limitations defense holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance of responsibility despite his plea of guilty where he attempted to suborn perjury holding that appellants plea of guilty was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to reveal identity of confidential informant and that error was thus not waived by plea of guilty because informants testimony was relevant to and needed for defense to prosecution