§§ 3231 and 3583(e). We exercise jurisdiction over Banks’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the sentencing decision of a district court for abuse of discretion, looking for procedural error and then examining the sentence for substantive reasonableness. United States v. Negroni, 638 F.3d 434, 443 (3d Cir.2011). We review a district court's factual findings regarding competency for clear error. United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237, 241 (3d Cir.1998). For unpreserved issues, however, we review for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Acknowledging that the legal landscape in our circuit is unclear as to whether plain-error review applies to unpreserved challenges to competency findings and sentencing procedures, the Government encourages us to so hold. B 291 (3d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). But we need not decide whether a
holding that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release holding that there is no federal or colorado constitutional right to postconviction counsel but there is a limited statutory right holding that a right to confrontation exists in parole revocation proceedings holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole