gave no indication of the significance or lack of significance attached to each fact.”); United States v. Recla, 560 F.3d 539, 547 (6th Cir.2009) (vacating sentence where “the record does not disclose the extent to which the possibility of the government filing a Rule 35(b) motion influenced the district court’s sentencing decision — if it influenced it at all.”); United States v. Stephens, 549 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir.2008) (emphasis in original) (“Unfortunately, both defense counsel and the district court referred only to departures, which leaves us in doubt as to whether the court fully considered its discretion to vary from the sentencing Guidelines range.”); United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336, 340 (6th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Clark, 469 F.3d 568, 570 (6th Cir.2007)) (<HOLDING>). Although the concurrence envisions a
holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute holding that the childs statement regarding sexual abuse was not sufficiently trustworthy when made in direct response to the question  did anybody ever do anything like this to you to make you do this  after the child was found sexually touching her sister holding that district comets inquiry do you have anything else for the record failed to satisfy requirement that the court clearly ask for objections to the sentence that have not been previously raised holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained