is also seriously flawed. In multiple cases this term, the Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that the Guidelines remain a central part of the sentencing process post-Booker. The Guidelines are “the starting point and the initial benchmark” for sentencing decisions, Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), entitled to “respectful consideration,” Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), because “in the ordinary case, the [Sentencing] Commission’s recommendation of a sentencing range will ‘reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives,’ ” id. at 574 (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465). See also United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518 (1st Cir.2006) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The majority does not dispute the continuing
holding that the district court normally should begin with a guidelines calculation recognizing that harmless error review applies when the court errs in the guidelines calculation holding that district courts calculation of drug quantity under guidelines for purposes of sentencing did not violate stare decisis under neal because such calculation did not conflict with any controlling sentencing precedent holding any possible error in a guidelines calculation harmless where this court was confident  that the district court could  and would  impose the same sentence again under the nowadvisory guidelines regime holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court