Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and may be invalid if it was induced by threats or misrepresentations, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). A defendant’s statements at the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing are presumed to be true. Black-ledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Unsupported allegations on appeal are insufficient to overcome representations at the Rule 11 hearing. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir.1991) (stating that defendant’s statement at Rule 11 hearing that he was neither coerced nor threatened was “strong evidence of the voluntariness of his plea”); Via v. Superintendent, Powhatan Corr. Ctr., 643 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, McMillan indicated at the Rule 11 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements (B) holding that a plaintiff must plead with specificity as to the statements or omissions considered to be fraudulent the speaker when and why the statements were made and an explanation of why they were fraudulent (C) holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive (D) holding that the defendant was entitled to have his plea accepted absent a sound reason for rejecting the plea (E) holding that statements at plea hearing that facially demonstrate pleas validity are conclusive absent compelling reason why they should not be
Output (English): holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive