largely due to the needs of codefendants, rather than any slothfulness on the government’s part. That is an important integer in the speedy trial calculus. Id. at 22. To top things off, Rodríguez-Matos has shown no prejudice to her ability to present her defense. We therefore hold that her Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not abridged. E. Sentencing. The appellants broach a series of challenges to their sentences. As we must remand the case for resentencing on count 4, see supra Part III(B), we do not address any sentencing arguments specific to that count. 1. Booker. The appellants’ most pervasive sentencing theme posits that resen-tencing is required in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (<HOLDING>). As none of the appellants preserved the issue
holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines holding that the sentencing courts conclusion that there was simply no way to avoid the base offense level did not indicate mandatory application of the guidelines holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines holding that the mandatory nature of the united states sentencing guidelines resulted in violations of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial and rendering the guidelines advisory holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error