Record contained sufficient evidence to support Dist. Ct.’s revocation of defendant’s term of supervised release, where Dist. Ct. found that: (1) defendant and two associates agreed to shoot victim; (2) defendant was aware of said plan; (3) defendant and his two associates chased victim in their motorcycles; (4) one of said associates shot victim in his truck; and (5) defendant aided shooter by accepting shooter’s motorcycle jacket and then returning it in effort to conceal shooter’s identity. Also, written revocation petition provided defendant with sufficient notice of violation of supervised release, and failure of Dist. Ct. to hold preliminary hearing was harmless error, where defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of said failure. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in sentencing defendant to 30-month term of incarceration arising out of instant revocation, where Dist. Ct. failed to identify appropriate category of offense under sentencing guideline and failed to consider applicable sentencing range prior to imposing instant sentence.