to achieve § 3553(a)’s purposes, even in a mine-run case.” 128 S.Ct. at 575. It is the impact of Kimbrough on Williams’s sentence that forms the basis for the instant remand of Cornelius Grant Williams I. Kimbrough did nothing to alter the settled rule that Soofcer-type errors are subject to harmless-error analysis, see United States v. Robinson, 460 F.3d 550, 557-58 (4th Cir.2006) (applying harmless-error analysis to Booker claims (6th Cir.2006) (unpublished) (“We have held that when the defendant has been sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum, Booker is not implicated.”); United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 n. 1 (11th Cir.2005) (finding harmless Booker error where defendant received statutory minimum sentence); United States v. Sharpley, 399 F.3d 123, 127 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). To remand for resentencing under these
holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error 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 booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence