argument, but his Second Amended Motion to Vacate
superseded his First Amended Motion and was operative at the
time of the hearing. It contains no such limitation on Mr.
Harmon's claim. See dkt. 67 at p. 3
(“Trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly
advise Petitioner that he could choose to plead guilty
without the benefit of a plea agreement or cooperation with
the Government.”). Thus, contrary to the
government's position in the instant motion, neither Mr.
Harmon's arguments nor the Court's analysis depended
on Mr. Harmon entering an open plea before the superseding
indictment added the witness charges against him. Following
the superseding indictment, Mr. Harmon could have entered an
open plea to the drug charges and proceeded to trial on the
witness charges.

With
these two important points in mind, the Court turns to the
performance element. The Court concluded that Mr.
Crawford'shad been in the insurance business for sixty-six years.  For a substantial period prior to the execution of the agreement in question, Reidy was a director, the vice president, a business consultant, and the sole insureance agent for the Richards company.  In these roles, Reidy could have been found to have been aware of the financial condition of Richards and of the need to provide assurance to bonding companies such as American Casualty before they would increase the Richards company's maximum bonding limit.  Reidy had in the past furnished collateral to enable Richards to obtain the bonds necessary for its construction projects.  These and other facts submitted to the district judge indicate that the purported agreement was not executed in a vacuum, but rather