MEMORANDUM **

Omar Carballo-Delgado appeals his jury-trial conviction for illegal re-entry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carballo-Delgado contends that we must vacate his conviction because the penalty sheet accompanying his superseding indictment misstated the applicable statutory maximum, and the district court did not advise Carballo-Delgado of the correct statutory maximum when Carbal-lo-Delgado was re-arraigned on this indictment.

Even assuming, without deciding, that error occurred, Carballo-Delgado cannot establish that substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (describing plain error standard). The record does not support Carballo-Delgado’s contention that, at the time he elected to proceed to trial, he believed he faced a statutory maximum of ten years rather then twenty years. Both the original information to which Carballo-Delgado pled not guilty and the pre-plea investigative report requested and considered by the parties prior to Carballo-Del-gado’s re-arraignment included the correct statutory maximum. Carballo-Delgado therefore fails to establish “a reasonable probability that, but for [the error claimed], the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.