Second Circuit embraces plain error approach to reasonableness review

The Second Circuit today issues a significant opinion about sentencing review in US v. Villafuerte, No. 06-1292 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2007) (available here).  Here is the start of the opinion:

This case requires us to determine the consequences of a criminal defendant’s failure to object to a district court’s method of discharging some of its duties under 18 U.S.C. § 3553.  Defendant-appellant Jorge Villafuerte appeals from a March 8, 2006 judgment of the district court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge), arguing that the district court erred by (1) concluding that the sentence recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) accounted for the factors under § 3553(a) and (2) failing to state adequately its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence, as required by § 3553(c). We need not decide whether there was any error; because Villafuerte failed to object below, both challenges are subject to plain error analysis, and neither alleged error is plain.

I know that some other circuits have adopted a similar “plain error” approach to reasonableness review, although I also think a few circuit have rejected this legal overlay.  In my view, the Second Circuit’s approach seems to be in tension with the whole purpose of reasonableness review as a means to help achieve sentencing consistency.  If a sentence is unreasonableness, I do not quite understand why a circuit should uphold that sentence simply because the defendant did not sufficiently object to that sentence below.