the possible term of incarceration was fifteen years rather than seventy-five years before the plea was entered). Having found that the court committed a clear error, we must next determine whether the error was harmless. An error may be considered harmless only if it does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights. Syal, 963 F.2d at 906. An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if it is “prejudicial,” in the sense that it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed. r.1984) (finding that the defendant “suffered identifiable prejudice because the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum sentence he was promised he would receive”). Cf. United States v. Williams, 899 F.2d 1526, 1531 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because this error affected
holding that courts failure to tell defendant in rule 11 plea hearing that he faced a mandatory period of supervised release was harmless error because the defendant was on notice of the supervised release requirement set out in the plea agreement and the defendant did not claim he was unaware of the requirement only that court technically had failed to comply with requirements of rule holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where nothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release and there was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where njothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release andthere was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned 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