Lisa Hall appeals from an order of the district court 2 revoking her supervised release. Hall contends that the district court at the revocation hearing improperly denied her requests for substitute counsel and for a continuance. Hall also on appeal challenges for the first time certain evidentiary rulings the district court made. We review a denial of a request for substitute counsel and for a continuance for abuse of discretion. United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 1992). Because Hall raised no evidentiary objections before the district court, we review the disposition only for *658 plain error. United States v. Campar-Fabela, 210 F.3d 837, 840 (8th Cir. 2000).

Although the district court did not conduct an extensive inquiry into the basis for Hall’s request for substitute counsel, we find no abuse of discretion. Our precedents require such an inquiry only when a defendant raises a “seemingly substantial complaint” about existing counsel. United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d 1436, 1440 (8th Cir. 199S)(quoting Smith v. Lock-hart, 923 F.2d 1314, 1320 (8th Cir. 1991)). Hall made no complaint of any kind concerning the counsel appointed to represent her. We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Hall’s request for a continuance. After having carefully reviewed the record we see no plain error in the result. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.