MEMORANDUM **

Nigel Hunter appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised *122release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hunter contends that his supervised release should not have been revoked because he attended a drug and alcohol relapse program at the direction of his probation officer, after his admitted use of alcohol. This argument fails because attending a treatment program after a supervised release violation does not preclude a subsequent revocation petition based upon that violation. See United States v. Shampang, 987 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1993). Moreover, there is no indication that Hunter was misled or promised that supervised release would not be revoked if he attended the treatment program. Id.

AFFIRMED.