maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The plea petition also shows that he was advised by his attorney that the applicable guideline range would be from 180 months to life imprisonment. At the plea hearing, the Court also advised Petitioner that he faced a mandatory minimum of fifteen years imprisonment. Transcript of Plea Hearing at 11. As noted above, the Court confirmed that Petitioner had read and understood the contents of the plea petition. Id. at 27. Further, the Court informed Petitioner that probation was not available as an opt ey had not so informed him, the Court took care during the plea colloquy to ensure that Petitioner was fully aware of the nature of the plea agreement and of the possible sentence he could receive. See Ramos v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 560, 565 (6th Cir.1999)(<HOLDING>). Thus, Petitioner is not entitled to relief
holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that the courts proper colloquy can be said to have cured any misunderstanding petitioner may have had about the consequences of his plea holding that plea colloquy did not refute defendants claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his competency because defendants competency was never addressed at the plea colloquy holding that defendants guilty plea could not be said to have been entered with full knowledge of the consequences of such a plea when the trial court clearly did not advise him that his prior convictions could influence either the decision to impose the maximum oneyear penalty on each count or the decision to order the terms to be served consecutively