1025 (9th Cir.2001) (approving the use of estimated losses in light of “the difficulty inherent in calculating loss caused by a mail fraud scheme”). It does not excuse the improper inclusion of a known amount of interest or the introduction of arithmetical errors while tallying determinate loss figures. Given the district court’s unequivocal statement that “even if it were to apply the advisory guideline range urged by the defendant, the Court would have sentenced the defendant to 24 months of incarceration” anyway, and the fact that Webster has not suggested that the loss computation’s relationship to a term of supervised release is anything but less direct than its connection to incarceration, the error was harmless. See United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625, 634 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not
holding any possible error in a guidelines calculation harmless where this court was confident  that the district court could  and would  impose the same sentence again under the nowadvisory guidelines regime holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error recognizing that any error would be harmless to the government in this case because the district court couldand wouldimpose the same sentence again under the nowadvisory guidelines regime recognizing that harmless error review applies when the court errs in the guidelines calculation holding that any error was harmless because under the unusual circumstances present in this thirdtime appeal we recognize that the district court could  and would  impose the same sentence again