Dist.Ct. did not err in imposing two-year term of supervised release on wire fraud charge, even though defendant argued that imposition of any term of supervised release was unwarranted because of likelihood that she would be deported after her term of incarceration. Defendant waived issue due to her failure to raise said argument in Dist. Ct., and defendant otherwise declined Dist. Ct.'s offer to provide detailed explanation for each term of supervised release. However, govt.’s failure to assert waiver argument meant that defendant’s issue was only forfeited and was subject to plain error review, and Dist. Ct.'s explanation that supervised release was appropriate because of probable delay in defendant’s deportation was procedurally sufficient. Also, defendant could not establish prejudice with respect to her claim that condition forbidding her from leaving jurisdiction without permission was improper because it lacked scienter component.
