MEMORANDUM **

Mario Humberto Arreola-Trasvina appeals from the sentence imposed upon him following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Clerk shall file appellant’s supplement to the opening brief received on December 20, 2004. We reject Arreola-Trasvina’s contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the supervised release revocation proceeding because the underlying warrant was not supported by an oath. See United States v. Ortuno-Higareda, 450 F.3d 406, 410-11 (9th Cir-. 2006) (holding that oath requirement only applies when the period of su*627pervised release has already expired prior to the revocation hearing).

We reject Arreola-Trasvina’s contention that the imposition of supervised release violates the Constitution. See United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.