context: Furthermore, the district court's error may have caused Defendant to go to prison for longer than she thought possible for the crime she committed. Thus, the court's error affects Defendant's substantial rights.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 963 F.2d 906, 906
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that "the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error" where "[njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release [and][t]here was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Syal, 963 F.2d at 906 (holding that “the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error” where “[njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release [and][t]here was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned”); United States v. Walsh, 733 F.2d 31, 34 (6th Cir.1984) (finding that the defendant “suffered identifiable prejudice because the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum sentence he was promised he would receive”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 899 F.2d 1526, 1531
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that court's failure to tell defendant in Rule 11 plea hearing that he faced a mandatory period of supervised release was harmless error because the defendant was on notice of the supervised release requirement set out in the plea agreement and the defendant did not claim he was unaware of the requirement, only that court technically had failed to comply with requirements of rule
citation_b.sentence: Cf. United States v. Williams, 899 F.2d 1526, 1531 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that court’s failure to tell defendant in Rule 11 plea hearing that he faced a mandatory period of supervised release was harmless error because the defendant was on notice of the supervised release requirement set out in the plea agreement and the defendant did not claim he was unaware of the requirement, only that court technically had failed to comply with requirements of rule).