Opinion ID: 2976798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of Sentencing Challenges

Text: We next examine Love’s bid for resentencing. We review Love’s sentencing claims “for reasonableness, which accounts for the procedural and substantive components of sentencing.” Highgate, 521 F.3d at 595 (citing Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007)). The Government correctly observes that United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc), confirmed that plain error review applies to unpreserved sentencing claims, so long as the district court asks the defendant the so-called Bostic question, which “gives counsel a chance -5- No. 06-1581 USA v. Love to ask the sentencing judge for clarifications about the proposed sentence it just announced.” Id. at 390. In Vonner, the district court asked whether the defendant “had any objection to the sentence just pronounced not previously raised.” Id. at 386 (internal quotation marks and formatting omitted). The district court here, however, asked, “Anything else?”—a spare question that we have found insufficient under Bostic. United States v. Clark, 469 F.3d 568, 570–71 (6th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336, 340 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding “Do you have anything further for the record?” insufficient to satisfy Bostic). Love having been denied a proper Bostic opportunity to question his sentence, we review under the familiar reasonableness standard. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).