Was it plain error for a District Court to convict Petitioner on his plea of guilty to a crime never charged in the governing Indictment?

When the substantive offense charged (i) is compound in nature and requires, as an essential element, proof of a qualifying predicate violation, and (ii) the indictment charges a specific felony as the qualifying predicate violation, is Rule 11 complied with when the plea colloquy informs Petitioner that he is pleading guilty to the substantive offense on the basis of a completely different predicate violation than the one identified in the Indictment?

Did the Fifth Circuit correctly apply the plain error standard of review announced by this Court in United States v. Dominguez-Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) in rejecting Petitioner's claim that it was plain error for the District Court to accept his plea?

Was it plain error for a district court to convict petitioner on his plea of guilty to a crime never charged in the governing indictment?