the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Gomez also argues that the magistrate judge failed to inform him of the court’s obligation at sentencing to consider the Sentencing Guidelines and the other factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Rule ll(b)(l)(M). Although Gomez was not expressly given this admonishment, the magistrate judge did ask whether Gomez had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines with counsel, and Gomez answered affirmatively. Gomez was also clearly informed of the statutory maximum sentence that he faced by pleading guilty. Therefore, he was fully aware of the consequences of his plea. See United States v. Rivera, 898 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Gomez cites nothing in the record, nor do we
holding that a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if the defendant understands the range of allowable punishment holding that a defendant is aware of the consequences of his plea for sentencing purposes and the plea is voluntary as long as he understands the length of time he might possibly receive holding that due process requires that defendant be fully aware of direct consequences of guilty plea holding that guilty plea is voluntary and knowing only if defendant understands the range of allowable punishment that will result from his 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