Mark David McCarty has appealed the district court’s order revoking his supervised release. McCarty contends that the district court violated his right to due process in failing to enter a written order specifying the evidence it relied upon in revoking his supervised release and in failing to specify which violations it relied upon. Because McCarty did not raise these questions in the district court, this court’s review is for plain error. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Puckett v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

McCarty admitted the allegations in the petition for warrant or summons for offender under supervision, and he was given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988). He contested only two facts, repayment of the $100 loan and violation of the cell-phone rule; the remaining allegations, with respect to failure to make restitution, violation of the prescription-drug rules, and failure to maintain lawful employment, were not contested. There was no error, plain or otherwise. See id.

AFFIRMED.