of counsel.” United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir.1993), see also United States v. Jordan, 516 Fed.Appx. 681, 682 (10th Cir.2013) (applying Gordon where counsel explained the wrong maximum sentence); United States v. Triplett, 402 Fed.Appx. 344, 348 (10th Cir.2010) (same); United States v. Kutilek, 260 Fed.Appx. 139, 147-48 (10th Cir.2008) (applying Gordon where counsel explained the wrong mandatory minimum). Moreover," even if counsel’s performance was deficient, Garcia cannot show prejudice. His assertion that counsel’s error rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary is undercut by his statement in advance of plea, in which he acknowledged that he faced a sentence of ten years to life in prison. See United States v. Silva, 430 F.3d 1096, 1100 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Garcia does not sufficiently
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 counsels failure to advise the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea cannot rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance holding that where a defendant acknowledged awareness of the consequences of his plea agreement counsels erroneous explanation of the consequences was not prejudicial 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 an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea