context: . We find no fault per se with the court's imposition of a deadline for Hemphill to decide whether to accept the plea offer.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 283 F.3d 641, 645
citation_a.parenthetical: indicating that giving the defendant "a relatively short time to decide" whether to accept a plea agreement was not coercive
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir.1977) (affirming district court’s strict adherence to plea bargaining deadline as part of district court’s control and management of its docket); see also United States v. Cannady, 283 F.3d 641, 645 (4th Cir.2002) (indicating that giving the defendant "a relatively short time to decide” whether to accept a plea agreement was not coercive).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 547 F.2d 863, 868
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming district court's strict adherence to plea bargaining deadline as part of district court's control and management of its docket
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir.1977) (affirming district court’s strict adherence to plea bargaining deadline as part of district court’s control and management of its docket); see also United States v. Cannady, 283 F.3d 641, 645 (4th Cir.2002) (indicating that giving the defendant "a relatively short time to decide” whether to accept a plea agreement was not coercive).