for the sentencing judge for most offenses under the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 19. Petitioner acknowledged that his mind was clear and that he knew exactly what he was doing during the plea hearing. Id. at 33. The Court found that Petitioner was in full possession of his faculties, that he was competent to plead guilty, and that he understood the nature of the charges against him as well as the maximum penalty provided by law. Id. at 39. Given these circumstances, the Court finds no merit to Petitioner’s contentions that he did not understand the nature of the plea agreement or that he believed he would only be given probation. By Petitioner’s own admissions, his attorney had informed him of the mandatory minimum sentence. See Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir.1986)(<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Even if Petitioner’s
holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court holding that where the court has scrupulously followed the required procedure the defendant is bound by his statements in response to that courts inquiry holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand