or non-constitutional error associated with a sentence issued under the applicable provisions of the Guidelines. Id. at 769. Since the Sixth Amendment is not implicated when a sentence is enhanced based on a prior conviction, id. at 756; Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 243-48, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the district court did not commit a constitutional error in enhancing Alvarez-Varela’s sentence. The district court did not commit a non-constitutional error because the district court sentenced Alvarez-Varela both under the then-mandatory Guidelines and independently, based on the statutory maximum provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), considering sufficiently the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Knows His Gun, No. 04-30302, slip op. 1739, 1748-49 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Because we further conclude that the sentence
holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a holding that guidelines should be accorded the same weight as each other factor listed in  3553a 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 nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in  3553a