In this direct criminal appeal, Juan Ma-gallon-Avalos (Magallon) challenges his conviction for illegally reentering the United States after being deported following a felony conviction. For reversal Magallon argues that the district court 1 failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Pro *619 cedure ll(b)(l)(I) and (M) in taking his guilty plea. Magallon did not object in the district court and, even if the district court did not comply with the technical requirements of Rule 11, Magallon failed to show his substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (defendant who allows Rule 11 error to pass without objection in trial court must satisfy plain error rule, i.e., that claimed plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights); United States v. Prado, 204 F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir. 2000) (analyzing Rule 11 plain error in terms of whether defendant would have otherwise pled guilty).

Accordingly, we affirm.