v.
Don Elbert, II
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3014
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Don L. Elbert, II
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Western Division
____________
Submitted: September 24, 2018
Filed: January 8, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Don L. Elbert, II, admitted to violating a special condition of his supervised release and was sentenced by the district court1 to 10 months of imprisonment and 12 to offer evidence on the other three alleged violations. The court accepted the admission and found that Elbert had violated the condition. The Government and Elbert’s counsel both recommended a sentence of 10 months of imprisonment and 12 years of supervised release. The district court then gave Elbert the opportunity to address the court. Elbert asked about where he would be staying once he was released, which the court was unable to answer conclusively, although it indicated a halfway house was likely. Elbert did not dispute the admission his counsel had just made to the violation or give any indication he was not in agreement with his counsel. The court then imposed the recommended sentence.
[*2]Elbert argues on appeal that the district court erred in accepting his admission because it failed to ensure that the admission was knowing and voluntary and also that the district court’s sentence was unreasonable. Because Elbert failed to object at his revocation hearing, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Taylor, 747 F.3d 516, 519 (8th Cir. 2014). We conclude Elbert’s admission was knowing and voluntary.
Unlike accepting a guilty plea, which under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 “requires an affirmative showing that the plea is intelligent and voluntary,” accepting an admission at a revocation of supervised release does not require an affirmative showing on the record. Taylor, 747 F.3d at 519; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1. There is no evidence here that Elbert’s admission was not knowing and voluntary. Elbert and his counsel had reviewed and gone over the violation report and Elbert’s counsel admitted the violation at the revocation hearing in Elbert’s presence. Elbert was given the opportunity to speak and did not object to the admission. On these facts, we cannot conclude that the district court erred by accepting Elbert’s admission.
Elbert also argues his sentence was not substantively reasonable. However, Elbert has affirmatively waived his challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Chavarria–Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668, 671 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Waiver precludes appellate review, while forfeiture limits consideration to a rigorous plain-error standard.”); United States v. Harrison, 393 F.3d 805, 807–08 (8th Cir. 2005) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.” (quoting United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995))). He explicitly asked for a sentence of 10 months of imprisonment and 12 years of supervised release. Elbert cannot now complain that the district court gave him precisely what he requested.
[*3]For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
______________________________
[*4]