less-than-sturdy foundation, he concludes that the sentencing court’s decision to vary upward based on that fact amounted to impermissible double-counting. See United States v. Sepúlveda-Hernández, 817 F.3d 30, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2016). The appellant objected below on procedural grounds, but his objection was altogether generic, not specific. He did not allude to, or even mention, the specific claim of error that he now seeks to raise. “A general objection to the procedural reasonableness of a sentence is not sufficient to preserve a specific challenge to any of the sentencing court’s particularized findings.” United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (1st Cir. 2017) [No. 16-1444, 2017 WL 1547276] (collecting cases); accord United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69, 76 (1st Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Hence, our review of this claim is for plain
holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them