sentence of life imprisonment that Hanson was told he could receive. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 974 (7th Cir.2002). Although the court did not tell Hanson that he had the right to plead not guilty, see Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), this error was harmless because Hanson was aware of his right to plead not guilty; he originally had pleaded not guilty to both counts of the indictment and then changed his plea to guilty, see Knox, 287 F.3d at 670. Counsel also states that the court did not inform Hanson that he was giving up the right to confront witnesses against him at trial. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3). Because the court informed Hanson that “at a trial [he] would have the right to cross-examine witnesses against” him, we agree with counsel that this again would be har r.2002) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, there is no time period
holding that burglary is violent felony holding that all escapes qualify as violent felonies holding that  2255 movant claiming his prior conviction for assault was not a violent felony did not qualify for actual innocence exception holding that when an inmate escapes from a guarded facility he acts with purposeful violent and aggressive behavior and creates a substantial risk of violent confrontation holding a burglary must be of a building or structure in order to qualify as a violent felony for acca purposes