Whether a party is required to specifically object to the district court's failure to explain its rejection of nonfrivolous sentencing arguments after pronouncement of sentence to preserve the claim on appeal

QUESTION PRESENTED When a district court rejects a party’s nonfrivolous sentencing argument, the court is required to explain why. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). If a defendant contends on appeal that the district court ignored his arguments, some circuits—including the Ninth Circuit—deem the defendant’s claim forfeited unless he specifically objected, after the pronouncement of sentence, to the claimed failure of explanation. Other circuits hold—more in line with this Court’s decision in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020)—that requiring a post hoc objection is formalistic and unnecessary, and thus that a defendant may preserve his claim by simply presenting arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 for a sentence different than the one imposed. The question presented is: To preserve a claim that the district court failed to explain its rejection of nonfrivolous sentencing arguments, is a party required to specifically object to the claimed error after the pronouncement of sentence? i