demonstrates that the district court would have imposed a sentence outside the properly calculated sentencing range for the same reasons it provided at the sentencing hearing. However, that is not the end of our inquiry. As set forth above, the government must also • demonstrate that Martinez’s 46-month sentence “was-not influenced in any way by the erroneous -Guidelines calculation.” Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d at 719. As Martinez .correctly points out, his sentence of 46 months coincides with the lowest end of the improperly calculated guideline range. .Thus, he argues that the error influenced the district court’s- determination of his sentence. There is persuasive, albeit unpublished, authority for this proposition. See United States v. Cardenas, 598 Fed.Appx. 264, 269 (5th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vasquez-Tovar, 420 Fed.Appx,
holding that a defendant met the third prong of plain error analysis demonstrating prejudice resulting from a booker error where the sentencing judge made several statements indicating the mandatory guideline sentence was very very severe and sentenced the defendant at the low end of the guideline range holding that an error was not harmless when the district court chose the lowest end of the improper sentencing range after stating that even if the court isnt correct the court believes it is necessary to sentence at this very high range holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum holding that defendant should be resentenced where district court imposed a sentence under an erroneously calculated guidelines range  even where the sentence imposed fell within the correct range