MEMORANDUM **

Earl Scott Chesnut appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon the revocation of supervised *428 release. We have jurisdiction under 28 ■U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Chesnut contends that the district court violated his right to due process by basing the sentence on inaccurate information regarding one of his prior convictions. We review for plain error, United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The government concedes that it erroneously referred to one of Chesnut’s prior convictions as being for assault and menacing when it was, in fact, just for menacing. However, the record reflects the district court did not rely on this misstatement in imposing Ches-nut’s sentence. Rather, the record demonstrates that the district court properly based the sentence on Chesnut’s history of domestic violence and breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Migbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, there was no due process violation. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (to establish a due process violation, defendant must show that the challenged information “was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed”).

Chesnut’s unopposed motion to supplement the record is granted.

AFFIRMED.