Islands v. Walker, 261 F.3d 370, 375 (3rd Cir.2001) (stating that “[a] sentencing court can, of course, reject the results of a plea negotiation if it concludes that the resulting agreement is not in the best interest of justice”). Therefore, at this stage, the Court must determine whether to accept and be bound to the specific provisions of the Plea Agreement. After careful deliberation, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to accept the Plea Agreement. The Court concludes that two provisions of the Plea Agreement, discussed below, are not in the best interests of justice and do not serve the public’s interests because they do not adequately address Guidant’s history and the criminal conduct at issue. See, e.g., United States v. Greener, 979 F.2d 517, 520 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). A. Probation As mentioned previously, the
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw guilty plea filed three weeks after entering the plea holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in giving jury instructions that taken together fairly and adequately conveyed the issues to the jury holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sequestering a criminal defendants fingerprint expert holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by coneluding the plea would not adequately represent the defendants criminal conduct