as well as the court, believed the bank robbery count remained alive. We believe the acceptance of the plea constituted neither an acquittal on the bank robbery count nor termination of the trial process. Defendant was entitled to request withdrawal of his plea. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(d). See Kienlen v. United States, 379 F.2d 20 (10th Cir. 1967). The court could have withdrawn the plea even over an objection by defendant upon determining that there was no factual basis for it. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f). Until entry of judgment and sentencing on the accepted guilty plea, defendant had not been formally convicted. See High v. United States, 288 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 923, 81 S.Ct. 1350, 6 L.Ed.2d 383 (1961). But see United States v. Rocco, 397 F.Supp. 655 (D.Mass. 1975) (<HOLDING>). Although defendant’s plea terminated one-half
holding that the relevant inqui ry in retaliation case is whether the employer believed the employee was guilty of the conduct justifying discharge holding that trial courts determination of whether defendant accepted responsibility should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that it is not