the Guidelines by considering them as binding as opposed to advisory.” Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330-31. Because the district court considered the guidelines to be mandatory, it committed statutory Booker error. The government bears the burden of showing that the statutory error was harmless. United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2005). The government argues that the error was harmless because the sentencing judge considered Soreide’s lavish lifestyle, the effect on the victims, and the extent of punishment and deterrence stemming from a sentence in the middle of the guidelines range. We have previously ruled that a sentence in the middle of the guidelines range is insufficient to prove harmless error. United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744, 749-750 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the government must set forth
recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable holding that the sentence alone tells us nothing about whether the district court would have imposed a lesser 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