Peters

MEMORANDUM **

Wesley Adolf Peters appeals the district court’s sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court “affirmatively misadvised” him of the consequences of admitting violations of his supervised release when it did not inform him that it could sentence him to a term of supervised release following his prison sentence. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Segal, which establishes that admissions during sentence revocation hearings need not be “knowing and voluntary.” 549 F.2d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir.1977). Furthermore, since Peters did not object in the district court, we apply the “plain error” standard of review. See Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 388 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 , 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). Because Peters specifically requested that the court impose a term of supervised release following his prison sentence, we cannot conclude that any error “affectfed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Peters argues that, because he was arrested pursuant…