him based on his admission. Despite that there was no impermissible judicial factfinding here, we find there was Booker error, within the meaning of the remedial h e Booker non-constitutional error did not affect substantial rights. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); United States v. Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir.2005)(“Non-constitutional error is harmless when it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.... The burden is on the government to show that the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” (citations omitted)). Based on our careful reading of the record, and particularly the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the government has not met its burden of establishing that the error was harmless. Cf. Paz, 405 F.3d at 948-49 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we vacate Giraldo’s sentence and
holding government failed to meet it burden to show harmlessness of mandatory application of the guidelines where transcript of sentencing hearing indicated district court would have imposed shorter sentence under advisory sentencing scheme holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory 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 government could not meet its burden under harmless error analysis because the record indicated that district court would have imposed shorter sentencing under advisory guidelines scheme