immunity where: “(1) an agreement was made; (2) the defendant has performed on his side; and (3) the subsequent prosecution is directly re lated to offenses in which the defendant, pursuant to the agreement, either assisted with the investigation, or testified for the government.” McHan, 101 F.3d at 1034 (quoting Rowe, 676 F.2d at 527-28); cf. Reed v. United States, 106 F.3d 231, 235 (8th Cir.1997) (noting that while the doctrine of equitable immunity has not been re 7th Cir.) (“When the government proposes a plea agreement, when the defendant accepts it and when the district court enforces it, there must be a meeting of minds on all of its essential terms.”), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 156, 117 S.Ct. 156, 136 L.Ed.2d 101 (1996); United States v. Robison, 924 F.2d 612, 613 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The testimony provided by Biek-nese, Meyer
holding that mutual mistake as to essential element of plea agreement can invalidate entire agreement holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement recognizing even after the entry of a final order judges can change their minds within the rule 11 period holding that cooperation agreement defendant entered into with the government did not include defendants testifying at trial where there was no meeting of the minds as to that point holding that there can be no plea agreement without a meeting of the minds