Evan Doss, Jr., appeals the revocation of his supervised release from his underlying conviction for conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and fraudulent transfer of assets. He argues that the district court erroneously concluded that he failed to make genuine efforts to obtain employment and make restitution payments and that he failed to explain adequately his reported income of a $1,000 consultant fee. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Doss violated his supervised release, and the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).

Doss also argues that his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of hearsay testimony from his probation officer. Because Doss did not object to the testimony in the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 849 (5th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Due process affords Doss the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses unless there is a specific *771 finding of good cause for not allowing confrontation. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); McCormick, 54 F.3d at 221. Because we conclude that the challenged hearsay testimony was not the only evidence supporting the revocation of Doss’s supervised release, Doss cannot show that the confrontation violations, if any, affected his substantial rights and constituted plain error. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770; McBride v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 432, 438 (5th Cir. 1997).

Finally, Doss argues that the district court erroneously prevented him from attacking the underlying restitution order during the revocation proceeding. The district court did not err. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048,1050 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Irvin, 820 F.2d 110, 111 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.