Dist.Ct. did not commit plain error in imposing 24-month term of incarceration after finding that defendant had violated certain terms of his supervised release, even though defendant claimed that instant sentence was based on violation of nonexistent term of supervised release. Defendant admitted at revocation hearing that he had violated one term of supervised release by failing to register as sex offender on four occasions, and Dist. Ct. found that defendant had violated three other terms of his supervised release that included failing to register as sex offender, unsupervised private contact with minors and commission of state crime. As such, defendant’s sentence was based on existing terms of his supervised release. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. mentioned term that was not included in defendant’s terms of supervised release, i.e., failure to answer probation officer’s inquiries truthfully, Dist. Ct. did not make finding that defendant had violated said term.
