plea was properly served on the defendant despite the absence of a certificate of service. Id. at 1123-24, 1126. That uncontroverted evidence included Mr. Cevallos’s plea colloquy and plea agreement, in which he acknowledged the filing of the information. Further, the Fifth Circuit observed that it was the regular practice of the United States Attorney’s office to hand the information to defense counsel at the time of filing. Id. at 1126 n. 7. The present case is easily distinguishable on two fronts. First, this case does not present an uncontroverted record of service. Second, Cevallos I does not stand for the proposition that a defendant's knowledge alone is sufficient to establish § 851(a)(1) compliance, because such a holding would be in conflict with Noland. See 495 F.2d at 533 (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Olson, 716 F.2d 850,
holding that the indigent defendant had to be provided with a transcript of an evidentiary hearing from his original trial so that he could file a new habeas petition holding that where a furlough and an enhanced sentence for failure to appear in court at a later time are part of the plea agreement a court is justified in imposing the enhanced sentence after the defendant fails to appear in court without giving him an opportunity to withdrawhis plea holding that the defendant failed to place before the trial court evidence of such weight as to establish that his prior sworn statement of satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded holding that the defendant waived the right to dismissal under  3162a2 when he did not file a motion to dismiss before trial holding that where the government failed to file an information before trial yet the defendant knew he could be subject to an enhanced sentence as early as his arraignment such knowledge or lack of surprise did not equate to compliance with  851