With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of review applies to Torres-Palos’s procedural reasonableness claim. Because Torres-Palos failed to object to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation after a proper Bostic question, see Bostic, 371 F.3d at 873, our review of this claim would normally be for plain error only. See United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 353-54 (6th Cir.2009) (explaining that the Bostic procedural rule is “especially pertinent with respect to objections that concern the adequacy of the court’s explanation”). However, the government has not sought plain-error review on appeal and therefore we review Torres-Palos’s claim under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284, 289 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. Escalon-Velasquez, 371 Fed.Appx. 622, 624 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). When determining what sentence to impose, a

A: holding that we will not consider an argument of plain error where the defendant has neither mentioned the plainerror standard nor made any attempt to show how he can satisfy that standard
B: holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan
C: holding the abuseofdiscretion standard applied because the government did not request the heightened standard and we do not apply plainerror review unless a party asks
D: holding that blakely challenge failed under plainerror standard
C.