With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the omission affected his substantial rights. Brown’s reliance on United States v. Neal, 509 Fed.Appx. 302 (5th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 183, 187 L.Ed.2d 125 (2013), is misplaced as it is distinguishable. Therefore, Brown has not shown plain error. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). 2 . See id. 3 . See id. 4 . United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). 5 . See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(B). 6 . See United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722, 726 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 7 . See Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83,

A: holding that district courts failure to advise defendant of right to plead not guilty and right against selfincrimination were implicit in the courts discussion of the rights he would lose if he pleaded guilty
B: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge
C: holding that even if the district court erred in accepting defendants guilty plea without a factual basis there was no reasonable probability that but for the alleged error the defendant would not have pleaded guilty in light of the extremely favorable plea deal that was structured to find a significantly less serious offense to which he could plead
D: holding failure to advise of right to subpoena witnesses does not affect the validity of a guilty plea
A.