United States v. Gustavo Araujo-Rios
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Gustavo Araujo-Rios appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Araujo-Rios contends that the district court erred by failing to advise him of his right under Federal Rule of Criminal Pro cedure 32.1(b)(2) to contest the allegations against him and have a hearing at which he could present evidence or question any adverse witness. We decline Araujo-Rios’s invitation to read United States v. Stocks, 104 F.3d 308 (9th Cir.1997), as requiring Rule 32.1(b)(2) advisements at his revocation hearing. See United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1298-1300 (9th Cir.1977); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that this court has refused to extend such procedural protections to proceedings less formal than state and federal criminal trials). Araujo-Rios was afforded his Rule 32.1(b)(2) rights. Araujo-Rios was given written notice of the allegations against him, in which the evidence against him was disclosed. He appeared at a revocation hearing, at which he was represented by counsel, and during which he had the opportunity to present…