pursuant to § 3553(a) that was identical to the guidelines sentence, the Sixth Amendment error was harmless.”); United States v. Cardenas, 135 Fed.Appx. 688 (5th Cir.2005) ("In this case, based on the alternative judgment, the Government has met its burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the Sixth Amendment violation at issue did not contribute to the sentence that Cardenas received."); United States v. Christopher, 415 F.3d 590, 592 (6th Cir.2005) ("Any error in Christopher’s sentencing was harmless, because the district court adequately conveyed that it would’impose the same sentence in the absence of mandatory sentencing enhancements."); United States v. Solis-Vaquera, 147 Fed.Appx. 608, 609 (7th Cir.2005) ("[T]he error was harmless in this case be 26 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Although the parties dispute whether the
holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines holding that defendant entitled to resentencing if the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed