context: We agree with Alvarado-Casas that it was error for the, district court to inform him that he faced only a ten-year maximum sentence, and that the error was clear and obvious.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 102 F.3d 118, 123
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A] plain reading of Rule 11 requires the district court to inform the defendant of the ... maximum possible penalty applicable to each count to which the defendant is pleading guilty."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 123 (5th Cir.1996) (“[A] plain reading of Rule 11 requires the district court to inform the defendant of the ... maximum possible penalty applicable to each count to which the defendant is pleading guilty.”); see also United States v. Toruno, 229 Fed.Appx. 296, 297 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (“The parties do not dispute that the district court incorrectly admonished [the defendant] regarding the maximum term of imprisonment and that the error was clear and obvious.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 229 Fed.Appx. 296, 297
citation_b.parenthetical: "The parties do not dispute that the district court incorrectly admonished [the defendant] regarding the maximum term of imprisonment and that the error was clear and obvious."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 123 (5th Cir.1996) (“[A] plain reading of Rule 11 requires the district court to inform the defendant of the ... maximum possible penalty applicable to each count to which the defendant is pleading guilty.”); see also United States v. Toruno, 229 Fed.Appx. 296, 297 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (“The parties do not dispute that the district court incorrectly admonished [the defendant] regarding the maximum term of imprisonment and that the error was clear and obvious.”).