his plea submission was in doubt. Id. at 133-36. In the case before us, we are satisfied that Rivera understood the nature of the charges against him in entering his plea of guilty. (ii) Second, Rivera claims that the District Court failed specifically to advise him of his right to compel witnesses at trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(E). The record reflects that while the Court advised Rivera of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, and the right to testify and present evidence on his own behalf, the Court did not inform him specifically of the right to compel witnesses at trial. Even assuming that omission was error, see United States v. Journet, 544 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>), Rivera cannot establish that the error
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 only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district holding that the information must set forth each element of the crime that it charges as well as fairly inform a defendant of the charge against which he must defend holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions holding that a district judge must inform the defendant of each and every right set out in rule 11