At Holguin-Hernandez’s revocation hearing, his counsel argued for a specific sentence–either nothing or less than 12 months. The government pushed for 12-18 months. After the district court chose 12 months, H-H appealed and argued that the length of his sentence was unreasonable. The government claimed he forfeited that argument by not stating an objection at the end of his sentencing. Siding with the defendant, SCOTUS held that H-H clearly argued for a sentence shorter than the one the court imposed. “Nothing more is needed to preserve the claim that a longer sentence is unreasonable.” Opinion at 4. Read the SCOTUSblog analysis here. If this sounds familiar, it is because SCOW decided a similar issues last month in State v. Counihan.