Whether a defendant must re-object to the district court's explanation of its sentencing rationale to preserve the arguments for appeal

Question Presented The Circuits are split on whether a defendant has to re-object to the district court’s explanation of its sentencing rationale in order to preserve the arguments for appeal. Petitioner’s case is from the Ninth Circuit and that court imposed plain error review on petitioner for not re-objecting to the district court’s sentencing explanation. United States v. Gutierrez-Torres, No. 17-50101, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1357 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2018). This re-objection requirement elevates form over substance and ignores that this same district court is minutes away from sentencing the defendant. Other circuits recognize that little is gained and much is lost by requiring a tail-end objection on an argument clearly raised and rejected. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336, 341 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009); In re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2008).