Did the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals commit plain error when it found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to withdraw global plea agreement, and erred in finding that the government fulfilled its obligations under the global plea agreement, purportedly did not mandate an illegal sentence, when in fact the global plea agreement did mandate an illegal sentence when the premise the prosecutor made could not be fulfilled?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED NUMBER ONE, DID THE ElGHTH CRCUIT Court oF APPEALS Commit PLAIN ERROR WHEN jr Found THAT THE “DISTRICT COURT BID NoT AGUSE ITS DisceeTtod INDENTING PETIONERS MOTION To wiTADRA GLOBAL PLEA AGREEMENT, AND uStedl 7 CounD THAT THE GOVERNMENT FULFILLED 17S o@LGATIONS UNDER THE cioB FLEA AGREEMENT, PURPORTEDLY iD Nov MANDATE AW [ULceAL SENTENCE, WHEN WS FACT THE GLOBAL BEA Agece-~ MENT bi) MANDATE AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE UIHEN THE PREMISE THE PRosecuTOR MANE Coup. Nor BE Fuckiép ? NUMBER T Wo, Din THE EletTA CRIT ‘Coort OF APPEALS ERR IN AFFIRMING THe DistTeicT COURTS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER MAY ONIX Foa AN (LLegaL SENTENCE, INeFFeCnye ASSASTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND LEGAL INNGEENCE CLAIM, WITHDRAW HIS “GLOBAL PLEA AGREE MENT/ CONTRACT" ONLN ON DIRECT APPEAL o@ COLLATERAL ATTACK PURSUANT To THE F.R.Ceim, P [N(@), VEHEN PETITIONER ON REMAND AND GEFORE SENTENUNG Moved To WITHDRAW “GLOBAL PLEA AGRCEMENT/Cottencr” PURSUANT To F.@.Ceim.?. iN(d) (2) (@) "FAR AND JUST REASON STANDARD | : oP |S .