under the Guidelines and § 3553(a). United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2054, 164 L.Ed.2d 804 (2006). This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As a threshold matter, VanBuren improperly treats the district court’s reentry of judgment as substantive proceedings subject to challenge under Booker. Clearly, the district court vacated VanBuren’s sentence and reimposed the same sentence in order to reinstate his direct appeal rights. Because VanBuren was effectively sentenced pre-Booker, the reasonableness standard of review is inapplicable. See United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 667-69 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In reviewing VanBuren’s 1998 sentencing
holding that remand for resentencing is appropriate when sentence for reversed conviction appears to have influenced trial courts sentence for the affirmed conviction holding that resentencing is required holding resentencing is not always required holding that a court is free to merely correct a prisoners sentence without the need for a formal resentencing holding that when a prr sentence is determined to be illegal the defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing