conspiracy to distribute cocaine as well as his sentence, which included a 130-month term of imprisonment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues. We hold as follows. Berroa-Nunez’s challenge to his guilty plea as neither knowing nor volun tary fails because the district court took great care to assure that Berroa-Nunez understood he had a maximum sentencing exposure of forty years and that any Guidelines range estimate his attorney may have given him could be mistaken, thus satisfying its obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H). Berroa-Nunez, therefore, cannot demonstrate plain error or even error. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 80, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The district court was allowed to consider
holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error holding that where a defendant fails to challenge his plea in district court he must establish plain error holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court holding that a defendant who fails to object to an error at a plea colloquy hearing must satisfy the plain error rule holding that a defendant who fails to object to trial error forfeits his right to appellate review unless he can establish fundamental error