With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". time he might face in the event that he should violate a condition of supervised release. Nor did the court inform Reyes that he would not receive any credit for time already served under the term of supervised release. This failure constitutes clear error. Because the district court failed to explain the effect of the supervised release, we must determine whether the error affected Reyes’s substantial rights. In Reyes’s “worst-case scenario,” the 151 month term of imprisonment combined with the three years of supervised release and the two-year period of incarceration that could be imposed after revocation of his supervised release would not exceed the twenty-year maximum prison sentence of which Reyes was advised. See United States v. Cuevas-Andrade, 232 F.3d 440, 444 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1014, 121 S.Ct. 1748,

A: holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum
B: holding that a sentence to a term of imprisonment ten years greater than the applicable maximum affected the defendants substantial rights
C: holding that the district courts failure to explain the effect of supervised release was harmless where the maximum term of incarceration under the actual sentence of imprisonment and supervised release less than six years as well as his worstcase scenario less than nine years was less than the maximum term of incarceration twenty years al lowed by law
D: holding  3583a itself authorizes a term of supervised release in addition to a maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the statute of conviction
C.