Whether the failure to give the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) warning affects the substantial rights of a naturalized United States citizen who could be denaturalized as a result of the guilty plea?

In Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 (2010), this Cout held defense counsel must advise a defendant of adverse immigration consequences prior to the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea. Following Padilla , Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was amended to require district courts advise defendants that “if convicted, a defendant who is not a United States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States in the future. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)( O). The Petitioner, Amir Golestan, is an Iranian national and a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. As a result of his wire fraud convictions, he is subject to denaturalization and eventual removal from the United States. The district court did not advise Mr. Golestan there could be adverse immigration consequences as a result of his guilty plea in violation of Rule 11(b)(1)( O). The Fourth Circuit concluded the district court’s error was harmless because “a warning meant for those who are not United States citizens would not have put Golestan on notice of the potential immigration consequences.” App. 13A . That conclusion was wrong and conflicts with the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) instruction places a defendant “on notice that he might face adverse immigration consequences as a naturalized United States citizen.” United States v. Ataya, 884 F.3d 318, 325 (6th Cir. 2018). The question presented is: Whether the failure to give the Rule 11(b)(1)(O) warning affects the substantial rights of a naturalized United States citizen who could be denaturalized as a result of the guilty plea?