was imposed by a district judge who, before Booker, treated the Guidelines as mandatory but would have imposed a materially different sentence had the judge known that the Guidelines were advisory. 409 F.3d at 1084-85. Having considered Huerta-Pimental’s argument, we conclude that Booker has no effect on the revocation of supervised release. It is clear from Booker that there is no Sixth Amendment Apprendi violation so long as the Guidelines are advisory. 543 U.S. at 226-27, 125 S.Ct. 738. Because the revocation of supervised release and the subsequent imposition of additional imprisonment is, and always has been, fully discretionary, it is cons mpact on supervised release revocation comports with that of our sister circuits that have addressed the issue. See Work, 409 F.3d at 492 (<HOLDING>); United States v. McNeil, 415 F.3d 273, 276
recognizing that under the booker remedial regime  the guidelines are no longer mandatory but are only advisory holding that because the portions of the guidelines dealing with revocation of supervised release were deemed advisory even before booker and remain so resort to them cannot constitute booker error holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence holding sentencing under the acca not to be a booker error 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