Read in isolation, the district court’s “deviation” language might suggest that the court applied a presumption in favor of a within guidelines sentence. However, that reading of the district court’s terminology is not the only plausible one. The court’s language might just as well suggest that the court properly allowed the guidelines to serve as a suggested starting point for the court’s consideration of the appropriate sentence. See United States v. McIlrath, 512 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir.2008). We have recognized that common verbal formulations often outlive their doctrinal usefulness. Here, the use of pr e-Booker nomenclature such as “deviation” might be problematic, but, standing alone, it is not reversible error. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 490 F.3d 589, 596 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rosby, 454 F.3d 670, 676-77
holding guidelines to be only advisory holding that use of the term enhancement also a pr ebooker term did not require reversal where district court properly considered the guidelines to be advisory holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in sentencing defendant above guidelines maximum where district court assumed guidelines to be advisory prebooker holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only holding that use of the pr ebooker term departure was not error because it did not make a substantive difference