violent felonies for purposes of the ACCA. 440 F.3d 1267, 1275-76 (11th Cir.2006). Likewise here, we reject Crews’s argument that the district court violated the S 180-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals in § 3553(a)(2), given that his criminal history was non-violent and involved non-residential burglaries. Again, the judge sentenced Crew to the minimum required under the ACCA and Crews does not assert that an exception to the ACCA minimum sentence applies here. The district court did not err because it lacked any discretion to use the § 3553(a) factors to vary downward from the minimum sentence. See United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Upon review of the record and consideration
holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum 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 purported calculation error in mandatory minimum was harmless because challenged sentence was 60 months longer than presumed minimum and was imposed according to guidelines without reference to statutory minimum holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory holding that there is simply no booker error where a defendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence