Randolph Freeman appeals the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of 41 months of imprisonment. Freeman contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the revocation petition because his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1) and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution were violated when he was deprived of an initial *397 appearance for 27 months following the execution of the revocation warrant.

We need not determine when the revocation warrant was executed because Freeman has not established that he was prejudiced by the alleged 27-month delay. See United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, he has failed to establish a due process violation and demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, in the denial of his motion to dismiss.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.