this same issue that any error that occurred as a result of the judge — as opposed to the jury^ — -finding for purposes of § 4B1.1(a)(1) that a defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of his offense was harmless. Id. at 1109. Pittman, however, was recently vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded for further consideration in light of Booker. Pittman v. United States, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1946, 161 L.Ed.2d 764 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2005), reh’g denied, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2539, 162 L.Ed.2d 289 (U.S. June 6, 2005). Our reconsideration of the matter is pending. There is no need to resolve the Pittman issue today because both Seals and Johnson are otherwise entitled to a limited remand pursuant to the procedure set forth in Paladino. United States v. White, 406 F.3d 827, 835 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We will vacate and remand the case for
holding that the district courts use of the sentencing guidelines as a mandatory regime was harmless error because appellant could not receive a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum required by  2251d holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion holding that a district courts treatment of the guidelines as mandatory renders a sentence procedurally unreasonable holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines