Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Phillips’s sentence. As an initial matter, we review the procedural reasonableness of Phillips’s sentence for plain error. In United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2004), we instructed district courts, after announcing a proposed sentence, to “ask the parties whether they have any objections to the sentence ... that have not previously been raised.” Id. at 872. If a party failed to raise an objection after being asked this question, we held that plain-error review applies on appeal to any arguments not preserved. Id. Our recent en banc opinion in United States v. Vonner, No. 05-5295, 516 F.3d 382, 2008 WL 320773 (6th Cir. Feb.7, 2008) (en banc), makes clear that the Bostic rule applies to post -Booker procedural reasonableness challenges. See Vonner, 2008 WL 320773 at *3 (<HOLDING>). Here, after the district court announced a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence (B) holding that plainerror review applied to appellants procedural reasonableness argument where defendant answered no to district courts bostic question at sentencing and explaining that although this answer did not undermine vonners right to appeal issues he had previously raised it did undermine his right to challenge the adequacy of the courts explanation for the sentence  an issue that became apparent as soon as the court finished announcing its proposed sentence and that counsel nonetheless declined the courts invitation to address (C) holding that when a sentencing issue centers upon a courts statutory authority to impose a sentence rather than the courts exercise of discretion in fashioning the sentence the issue raised implicates the legality of the sentence imposed (D) holding that under subsection al as then written the defendant had no right to appeal whether his sentence was supported by evidence presented because he entered into a plea agreement as to the sentence (E) holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added
Output (English): holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence