that defendant did not clearly articulate any of these procedural challenges in the district court. If the district court had correctly complied with the requirement set forth in United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872-73 (6th Cir.2004) (requiring the district court to expressly ask the parties whether they have any additional objections to the sentence tentatively announced), then defendant would be deemed to have forfeited his right to review of these procedural challenges except for plain error. The record shows, however, that the district court, at the end of the sentencing hearing, merely asked the parties whether there was "anything else.” R. 29, Sent. Tr. p. 10. This is insufficient to satisfy the Bostic requirement. United States v. Clark, 469 F.3d 568, 570 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We therefore review defendant's procedural
holding anything else inquiry to be insufficient holding that an employers inquiry into the reason for an employees work absences was a permissible jobrelated inquiry under the ada holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding inquiry notice to be appropriate standard under lampf holding that a bare allegation of bad faith is insufficient to require an inquiry into the governments decision not to file  5k11 motion