With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Fifth Circuit in Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571, 572 n. 2 (5th Cir.1957) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26, 78 S.Ct. 563, 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958)). However, “[cjertain possible consequences of a guilty plea are ‘collateral’ rather than direct and need not be explained to the defendant in order to ensure that the plea is voluntary.” United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $228,536.00, 895 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir. 1990) (listing examples of collateral consequences, such as parole revocation, the likelihood of an unfavorable military discharge, and the potential for civil commitment proceedings). Thus, district courts need not inform a defendant of collateral consequences during the plea colloquy. See United States v. Salerno, 66 F.3d 544, 550-51 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The requirements of Rule 11 are consistent

A: holding that the court had no duty to warn defendants about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction
B: holding that enhancement of sentence after violation of probation was collateral rather than direct consequence of plea
C: holding that an enhancement in a future sentence based on the present conviction is a collateral consequence and need not be advised of by the district court in its plea colloquy
D: holding that the sanction of deportation is a collateral not direct consequence of a guilty plea
C.