directly reassured Hemphill of the court’s impartiality; and the court made it clear to Hemphill that it was prepared to conduct a trial. The Government’s argument misses the mark. The district court’s commentary occurred before Hemphill agreed to accept the offer and to enter his plea at the plea hearing. For the reasons noted above, the district court’s commentary thereby created pressure in Hemphill’s mind to accept a plea agreement or face a potentially harsher sentence as punishment. See Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 159-60. Although the district court did indicate that it would be impartial and that Hemphill could proceed to trial, once a court has exerted pressure on a defendant it is difficult, if not impossible, to undo the coercive effects of that pressure. See Pena, 720 F.3d at 575 (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 160 (“Once the judge
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 even district courts instruction to disregard an earlier improper condition on entering a plea could not alter defendants perception of courts desired disposition holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard holding that a jury is presumed to heed the district courts instruction to disregard the fact that the defendants were held in contempt and admonished before the jury