the inverse relation between age and recidivism and provided a reason to question his retreat from crime. Although Currie also notes his acceptance of responsibility, this argument rings hollow in light of his statements in allocution denying involvement in his prior offenses and violence against women, which were flatly contradicted by the record. Currie further contends that, even if a departure was warranted, the district court did not adequately explain its reasons for concluding that intervening offense levels would not produce a sufficient Guidelines range. Even assuming, without deciding, that the court’s explanation regarding each intervening level was inadequate, we conclude any such error was harmless. See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232, 243 (4th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 166,
recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that procedural sentencing error is harmless if the resulting sentence is not longer thanthat to which the defendant would otherwise be subject alterations and internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted