A One-Line Objection at Sentencing Preserved Nothing

Saying "we object to the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable" after a judge pronounces sentence may not preserve anything. On October 27, 2026, in United States v. Williams, No. 24-7073, the Tenth Circuit refused to review a defendant's claims that the judge did not explain an above-guidelines sentence well enough, because that one line was the only objection. The order is unpublished and not binding precedent.

What happened

Edward Jay Williams pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Indian country after a motorcycle crash that killed his passenger. He was driving drunk, under the influence of marijuana and without a valid motorcycle license. The presentence report put his guideline range at 46 to 57 months. The district court imposed 96 months, the statutory maximum, pointing to the facts of the offense and his long history of driving under the influence and other drug- and alcohol-related convictions.

After sentence was announced, his lawyer "object[ed] to the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable" without saying more.

What the court decided

The procedural claims were waived. On appeal, Mr. Williams argued the judge did not adequately explain how sentencing disparities and his criminal history justified the upward variance. The Tenth Circuit said that to preserve that kind of claim, he needed to "alert the court that its explanation was inadequate, which ordinarily would require an objection after the court had rendered sentence." It added that "a party does not preserve an issue merely by presenting the issue to the district court in a vague and ambiguous manner or by making a fleeting contention before the district court."

An unpreserved claim usually gets plain-error review. But when a defendant "fails to preserve an issue [below] and also fails to make a plain-error argument on appeal," the court will "ordinarily deem the issue waived (rather than merely forfeited) and decline to review the issue at all." Mr. Williams made no plain-error argument, so the court did not review those claims.

Substantive reasonableness was reviewed, and the sentence stood. In the Tenth Circuit, a defendant generally does not have to object to preserve a claim that the sentence is too long. The court reviewed that claim for abuse of discretion and affirmed. Mr. Williams pointed to Sentencing Commission JSIN data showing that none of the seven other defendants sentenced from 2018 to 2022 with his offense level and criminal history score received an above-guideline sentence. The court said these "bare national statistics" could not defeat the district court's explanation. It also rejected his argument that the judge lengthened the sentence for rehabilitation, which Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), forbids.

What the rule is

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b) says a party preserves a claim of error by telling the court "of the action the party wishes the court to take, or the party's objection to the court's action and the grounds for that objection." Williams shows how the Tenth Circuit applies that to a sentencing explanation: the judge ordinarily has to be told, after the sentence, what is missing.

From my perspective

The last few minutes of a sentencing hearing matter for the appeal. Once the judge announces the sentence and the reasons, defense counsel gets a chance to object. A general objection is easy to make and, as Williams shows, may count for nothing on a procedural claim.

A specific objection names the gap. If the judge varied upward based on criminal history that the guideline range already counted, say that and ask the judge to explain why the range does not account for it. If the defense raised a disparity argument, say the court has not addressed it. The judge then has a chance to fix the explanation, and if the judge doesn't, the issue is preserved.

And if an objection was missed, the appeal brief should still argue plain error. Williams shows that skipping that step can mean the court won't look at the issue at all.

Data from JSIN can still be useful at sentencing, but Williams is a reminder that national numbers alone may not move an appeals court. They work best when tied to the person's own history and the facts of the case. Book a consultation and tell us what happened.