[NOT FOR PUBLICATION-NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we find no merit in defendant's belated claim that his plea was invalid. The district court was not obligated to provide the detailed instruction suggested by defendant, and, in addition, it is implausible that the omitted information would have made any material difference in defendant's decision to plead guilty. Defendant has not shown "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of Justice . . . or an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure." United States v. Lopez-Pineda, 55 F.3d 693, 696-97 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel also fails. Even assuming arguendo that defendant's factual assertions were true, in all the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that defendant's attorney was required to advise what we view as a "very dangerous course." See United States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520, 523 (1st Cir. 1996).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.