its discretion to impose a lesser sentence is evidence that the same sentence would have been imposed under an advisory guidelines regime.” United States v. White, 439 F.3d 433, 435 (8th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Davis, 442 F.3d 681, 684 (the defendant could not show a likelihood that he would have received a lesser sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime because the district court did not use the discretion available to it in his favor when sentencing under a mandatory Guidelines regime, and a “sentence at the top of the Guidelines range completely dissipates any residual doubt ... about whether [the defendant] would have received a more lenient sentence” had the Guidelines been treated as advisory); United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The court made specific statements at
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 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 that the district court which had considered the guidelines but found an upward variant sentence necessary given the defendants previous violations did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 24month sentence instead of a guidelines range sentence of 3 to 9 months incarceration holding booker error is avoided when district court calculates proper guidelines sentencing range treats guidelines as advisory and imposes reasonable sentence holding that because the district court did not fully use its discretion to depart from the guidelines when determining the proper range or in imposing the term of sentence sentence was 2 months above sentencingrange minimum any booker error was harmless