possible penalty for Count One was life imprisonment, and the court imposed only 14 years plus five years supervised release, its failure to explain that violation of the term of supervised release could result in an additional five years imprisonment did not affect Simpkins’s ability to evaluate the plea agreement and was harmless error. “Every circuit court of appeals that has considered a case involving a defendant who is misinformed as to the maximum term of supervised release [or its effects], but who receives a sentence with a combined term of imprisonment and supervised release that is less than the maximum penalty has concluded that this misinformation constituted harmless error.” United States v. Powell, 269 F.3d 175, 180-81 (3d Cir.2001); see also Reyes, 300 F.3d at 560 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 974
holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum holding  3583a itself authorizes a term of supervised release in addition to a maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the statute of conviction holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release