or leader. Because Soreide made a timely objection, we review his Booker claim under a harmless error standard. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1331 n. 7 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948-49 (11th Cir.2005). We find any constitutional Booker error committed by the di r, we remand for resentencing. Statutory Booker error arises “when the district court mi g in 1348-49 (11th Cir.2005) (concluding that constitutional error was not harmless because district court did not state that it would have imposed the same or higher sentence if it had the discretion to do so, even though it sentenced defendant to the “high end” the guidelines range and stated that the sentence was “appropriate”); cf. United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mejia-Giovani, 416 F.3d 1323
holding that where the guideline range is higher than the statutory maximum sentence the court should depart from the lowest range that could support the statutory maximum holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines 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 statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum