the district court selected an alternative sentence in accordance with our advice in Booker.”); United States v. Thompson, 408 F.3d 994, 997 (8th Cir.2005) ("Because the sentencing court made known that it would impose the same 420-month sentence after taking [the § 3553(a) ] considerations into .account, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); United States v. Becenti, 134 Fed.Appx. 256, 257 (10th Cir.2005) ("[T]he Sixth Amendment error here was harmless because the district court imposed an alternative sentence!,] • • • • and we are therefore not in the zone of speculation and conjecture regarding whether the error affected the court's selection of the sentence imposed.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Robles, 408 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hill, 411 F.3d 425,
holding statutory booker error was not harmless where district court imposed sentence in middle of guidelines range and there were no statements in the record reflecting that the court would have imposed the same or greater sentence under advisory guidelines holding a constitutional booker error harmless on the ground that because the district court stated its sentence would be the same even if the guidelines were only advisory  we know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt what the district court would do upon remand holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion