In order to preserve a § 3553(c) challenge to the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, must a party, who is given no opportunity to object to the imposed sentence, take exception or object to that explanation in the district court

QUESTION PRESENTED The district court varied upward and sentenced Jacob Smith to 25 years’ imprisonment. Because the district court varied upward, it was required to provide “specific” reasons for the imposed sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). As this Court has explained, a district court “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). On appeal, Mr. Smith challenged the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for the upward variance. But the Tenth Circuit held this claim forfeited and affirmed the sentence under plain error review. In contrast, and consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51, at least six courts of appeals would have held the claim preserved either because parties need not take exception in this instance or because Mr. Smith had no opportunity to object to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation. The question presented is: In order to preserve a § 3553(c) challenge to the adequacy of the district court’s sentencing explanation, must a party, who is given no opportunity to object to the imposed sentence, take exception or object to that explanation in the district court. 1