Was the District Court's admonishment that the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence applies to Count 4 a Rule 11(b)(1) error that rises to the level of 'plain error' requiring reversal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. After Mr. Elias’s plea but before his sentencing, the First Step Act amended § 924(c)(1) to clarify that the consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years only applies when a defendant commits a subsequent § 924(c) violation after a prior § 924(c) conviction has become final. This provision retroactively applies to Mr. Elias. As such, was the District Court’s admonishment-that the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence applies to Count 4-a Rule 11(b)(1)() error that rises to the level of “plain error” requiring reversal? II. Does the fatal deviance from Rule 11 in this case—that is, the District Court’s failure to advise Mr. Elias at re-arraignment of the correct mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment that could be imposed for his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) offenses, demand a new re-arraignment? See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(). il. Was Mr. Elias’s plea of guilty knowing and voluntary? Was Mr. Elias’s decision to plead guilty knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made when he was grossly misinformed about the risks attendant to going to trial? IV. Did the District Court’s decision to upwardly depart at sentencing in an attempt to “cure” the fatal Rule 11 violation succeed? V. Did the Fifth Circuit err by employing the “plain error” standard of review? By opposing the Government’s motion for upward departure on the basis that the FSA lowered his mandatory minimum sentence, did Mr. Elias implicitly invoke Rule 11 thus requiring the “harmless error” standard of review to apply? Rule 11 does not have a provision stating that plain error review applies to claims not brought to the district court’s attention; therefore, “plain error” standard of review is not required in this case. VI. Is acriminal defendant required to attempt to withdraw his guilty plea before a reviewing court can find that he has shown “substantial prejudice” under the “plain error” standard of review? il