SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Pedro Bernard (“Bernard”) appeals from a December 21, 2016 judgment finding that he admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release, revoking his supervised release, and sentencing him to 28 months and 20 days in prison. On appeal, Bernard argues that the revocation proceedings did not conform to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 1 because the District Court failed explicitly to ask whether he was pleading guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural ■ history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Because Bernard did not raise this objection in the proceedings in the District Court, we review for plain error. United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2013). To carry this burden, Bernard must show that “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that the District Court committed no error, much less a plain error. Neither Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 nor due process requires a court explicitly to ask a defendant “How do you plead?” at a revocation hearing. See United States v. Pelensky, 129 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 1997) (stating that “most of the fundamental constitutional procedural protections that are normally applicable to a criminal prosecution are not required for supervised-release proceedings as a matter of constitutional law” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Grandia, 18 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 1994) (rejecting argument that under Rule 11 a district court must specifically ask defendant “How do you plead?”). In any event, when the District Court asked Bernard whether he had “pled guilty to specifications 3, 4, and 7,” he responded “Yes.” Also, the Government submitted for “the parties” a Sentencing Letter stating that he had “entered a plea of guilty to specification numbers 3, 4, and 7.” Accordingly, the revocation proceedings conformed to Rule 32.1 and the District Court did not commit any error, “plain” or otherwise.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Bernard on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the December 21, 2016 judgment of the District Court.