‘[w]e believe, Your Honor, that there is room in that respect.’” Casas, 425 F.3d at 59. We observed that this objection “by its nature raised Apprendi concerns,” id. at 60 n. 48, which also would have sufficed to raise an Alleyne claim based on the same Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, see Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163 & n. 5 (noting that “there is no principle or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that increase the minimum”). Although Pizarro did not explicitly object on these grounds again at his most recent sentencing hearing (his third), our precedent suggests that, assuming Pizarro did not abandon his original objection, the objection would have preserved the Alleyne claim for our review now. See United States v. Amirault, 224 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We need not resolve whether Pizarro in fact
holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing holding that appellant properly preserved booker error claim by citing blakely in his written objection to the psi and reminding the court at sentencing of his blakely objection holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that a claimed violation of the right to a public trial must be preserved for review by a timely objection at trial holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection