Placencia-Medina

MEMORANDUM **

Gilberto Placencia-Medina appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Placencia-Medina asserts that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 and the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution required the district court to engage in a voluntariness-type colloquy before accepting his admission to violating the terms of his supervised release. He is incorrect. This Court has emphasized that “[proceedings to revoke supervised release, probation or parole need not comply with the procedural protections constitutionally guaranteed for criminal prosecutions.” United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1995). In particular, we have held that admissions made at probation revocation proceedings are not the equivalent of a guilty pleas, which must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. See United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1296-1301 (9th Cir.1977).

Placencia-Medina also contends that the district court erred by employing the *594 wrong statutory scheme for the revocation sentence. He specifically contends that the district court…