review Blackie’s sentence.” Id. at 403. Those rationales do not apply here where the district court gave an extensive explanation for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence on the record. As we explained in United States v. Poynter, 344 Fed.Appx. 171 (6th Cir.2009) (unpublished), “[wjhile this court has emphasized the importance of § 3553(c)(2), it has not vacated a sentence solely for failure to meet the statute’s written order requirement[,]” id. at 181 n. 8, and “[w]e do not regard the court’s failure to comply with this aspect of § 3553(c) as a basis for resentencing because the court provided a detailed oral explanation of its reasons for sentencing outside the Guidelines.” Id. at 181; see also United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186, 1197 (10th Cir.2008) (footnote omitted) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911, 916
holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error recognizing that the mere fact that the jury is made aware that the defendant is making an unsworn statement does not result in reversible error holding that failure to try issue made instruction on that issue reversible error holding that the district courts failure to enter a written statement of reasons as required by  3553c2 is not reversible error holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court  was reversible error