in an advisory instead of binding fashion by the sentencing judge in this case.” Id. at 1301. Reasonable probability of a different result means a probability “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 1299 (citation and punctuation omitted). Under the fourth prong, we consider the plain error’s affect on the judicial proceedings and look for such factors as the district judge’s express desire to impose a sentence different than that imposed. Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1333-34. We have consistently held that a sentence even at the low end of the guideline range, standing alone, is insufficient to carry a defendant’s burden demonstrating a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under advisory guidelines. See United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1361 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Even with the government’s concession that
holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding that the fact that a sentence imposed under the prebooker mandatory guideline regime was at the bottom of the mandatory range is not enough to create a reasonable probability that the defendant would have received a different sentence upon resentencing under an advisory guidelines system holding that a defendant met the third prong of plain error analysis demonstrating prejudice resulting from a booker error where the sentencing judge made several statements indicating the mandatory guideline sentence was very very severe and sentenced the defendant at the low end of the guideline range holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the mandatory guideline range without more is insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system accord united states v cartwright 413 f3d 1295 1301 11th cir2005 holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system