remarks of the government attorney at the defendant’s sentencing hearing). In the instant case, however, the government never made the promised recommendation, but instead merely responded when asked by the court that the promise to make the recommendation “does appear in the plea agreement.” Aplt. App. at 119. The prosecutor then proceeded to take with her left hand any conceivable benefit she had given with her right hand by stating, “But I recognize the Court cannot be bound by something that is illegal and impossible.” Id. The prosecutor’s statements in this case could hardly have constituted a “recommendation,” enthusiastic or otherwise, and actually served to undermine Mr. Cooper’s request for a sentence of probation. C.f United States v. Greenwood, 812 F.2d 632 (10th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The prosecutor has many ethical duties,
holding that the court should limit the amount of sanctions to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated holding that government breached agreement to not recommend incarceration by arguing to the court that the defendant lacked remorse and the court should use the case to deter others from committing tax evasion holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea holding that district courts failure to hold evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether defendant breached plea agreement was harmless when it was clear defendant breached agreement holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement