Finally, Freeman argues that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We address each of these issues in turn. I. When a defendant fails to raise an objection in the district court that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, we review for plain error only. United States v. Le-jarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir.2003). Thus, the defendant “must show that there is (1) error (2) that is plain and (3) that affects substantial rights,” and that “(4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 is generally not applicable to supervised release revocation proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Johns, 625 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). However, “[djefendants involved in revocation
holding that the district court did not err in failing to address the defendant personally to determine whether she understood the rights she was waiving by admitting that she violated the conditions of her probation holding that a party has mental capacity if she appreciated the effect of what she was doing and understood the nature and consequences of her acts and the business she was transacting holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination