error.”); United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Indeed, an argument that a district court failed to explain a sentence must be reviewed for plain error if it was not raised to the district court ‘at the time of sentencing.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Statman, 604 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir. 2010)); United States v. Ciappetta, 284 Fed. Appx. 854, 855 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Ciappetta’s first claim — that the district court failed to explain how Ciappetta engaged in more culpable conduct than one of his co-defendants — is reviewed for plain error because Ciappetta did not object to the district court’s explanation of its sentence below.”) (citing United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir.2007)); United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1176-77(10th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). 3 The concurrence argues that Brown, through
holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the trial court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that plain error analysis applies to unpreserved claims that a district court failed to comply with  3553e holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable