With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he had read and understood the indictment, which described the charges against him, and that he had conferred with his attorney about the indictment. Moreover, after the government summarized the elements of the conspiracy charges, Obiorah stated that he understood the elements of those charges and that he had consulted with counsel about them. This was sufficient to ensure the notice required by Rule 11. See United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513, 1523 (2d Cir.1997) (upholding guilty pleas under Rule 11 where “each defendant ac knowledged that he had read the indictment, had discussed the charges with his attorney, and knew that he was pleading guilty to counts charging money laundering and conspiracy to launder money”); United States v. Parkins, 25 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Insofar as Obiorah faults the district court

A: holding that defendant received requisite notice under rule 11 where inter alia he acknowledged at plea hearing that he had read the information understood it and discussed it with his attorney
B: holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it
C: holding that defendants written statement was voluntarily made when he was read his rights three times during course of evening in accordance with miranda and article 3822 and on each occasion defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights that he wished to waive them and that he wished to talk with fbi agents
D: 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
A.