Defendant waived on appeal any argument that Dist. Ct. erred in imposing certain terms of defendant’s supervised release because it had failed to justify said terms and imposed vague condition based on superseded version of Sentencing Guidelines. Record showed that defendant acknowledged at revocation hearing that he had received prior notice of proposed terms and had discussed them with counsel, and that defendant told Dist. Ct. that he had no objections to or questions about them. Fact that defendant did not have presentence investigation report by time of his revocation hearing did not require different result, where defendant had previously received “summary report of violation” that notified defendant of recommended terms of his supervised release.