Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the maximum fine on Count Two, an Arms Export Control Act violation, 22 U.S.C. § 2778, was“$l million or twice the gain. or twice the loss.” DA 77. The government then argues that because the defendant corporation was advised the maximum total fine which could be imposed was $1,010,000 and defendant was fined one millions dollars, the error was harmless. In support of its position, Defendant relies primarily on. United States v. Herrold, 635 F.2d 213 (3d Cir.1980), for the proposition that “failure to instruct defendant of the actual maximum sentence before the submission of a guilty plea violates Rule 11(e)(1),” id. at 215, and affords grounds for .withdrawal of a plea under Rule 32(e) (formerly Rule 32(b)). See id. at 216. See also Kelsey v. United States, 484 F.2d 1198 (3d Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). The Herrold court reviewed the proceeding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing (B) holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement (C) holding that the government was not responsible for delay from withdrawal of guilty plea (D) holding that defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea (E) holding that defense counsels informing a defendant the maximum penalty was more than the statute allowed resulted in the plea not being knowing or voluntarily and necessitated withdrawal of the plea
Output (English): holding that defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea