who signed the government’s appellate brief as an officer of the court is the same AUSA and member of the Southeastern Drug Task Force who signed the original indictment, Rl-7-4, the superceding indictment, id. 58-4, the plea agreement, id. 82(D)-4, the preliminary Rule 35(b) motion, id. 131(A)-3, and the Rule 35(b) motion pertaining to Orozco’s assistance at the trial of Armando Rodriguez, filed on December 17, 1996, id. 152-3. In short, this AUSA has handled Orozco’s case from investigation through this appeal and obviously knew what information Orozco provided and when he provided it. By signing the government’s brief, the AUSA certified that the statements therein were supported by his knowledge and information. See United States v. Stevens, 510 F.2d 1101, 1106 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1975) (<HOLDING>). Thus, there is nqlhing whatsoever in the
holding that rule 11 sanctions may only be imposed upon the attorney who actually signs the documents in question recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure holding that california rule modeled almost word for word on rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure does not allow a pro se attorney litigant to recover sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys fees holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure recognizing that aside from sworn affidavits a government attorney who signs a document filed with a court is acting as an officer of the court and is bound by the requirements of rule 11 federal rules of civil procedure