Supreme Court remand). An error that does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights is harmless. Id. at 557. A defendant’s substantial rights are not affected if “the court would have imposed the same sentence in the absence of the constitutional error.” United States v. Shatley, 448 F.3d 264, 267 (4th Cir.2006). Here, even if the district court had been sympathetic to Williams’s argument that the crack/powder disparity is unfair, it would have had no choice but to sentence Williams to life imprisonment, the statutory minimum sentence for Count One. Any Kimbrough error, then, was harmless, as Williams “would have [received] the same sentence in the absence of the constitutional error.” Shatley, 448 F.3d at 267. See also United States v. Blandin, 154 Fed.Appx. 325, 327 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jones, 205 Fed.Appx. 327,
holding in booker error case where defendant was sentenced at lowend of guideline range that defendant did not establish a reasonable probability of a different result where court expressed no desire to impose a lower sentence holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence holding that a booker error committed alongside the imposition of a statutory minimum sentence is a prototypical example of harmless error holding that any apprendi error is harmless if the defendant is sentenced to less than the statutory maximum