Is there any case authority or evidence supporting a claim that the Defendant was misled by a misstatement of the elements?

As to the claim that the Defendant was misled by a misstatement of the elements, Defendant's position is untenable. Without case authority or a statement in the record in support, this claim is made. While it may lack certain elegance to read the disjunctive parts of the statute, it was done so correctly and included part (a)(2) the specific provision Defendant faced. The discussion of what the facts were, as stated by Defense counsel, and fully adopted by Defendant, were clear. While Rule 11 imposes strict requirements on what information the district courts must convey and determine before they accept a plea, it does not ... tell them precisely how to perform this important task in the great variety of cases that ... come before them." United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513, 1520 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). "What is essential ... is that the court determine by some means that the defendant actually understands the nature of the charges." Id. at 1521. And "[i]n all such inquiries, matters of reality, and not mere ritual, should be controlling." McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, (1969.)