to follow directly applicable Supreme Court decisions.”). Second, Hernandez makes another challenge based on Booker’s remedy holding. In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines, in order to pass constitutional muster, cannot be treated as mandatory. Here, the District Court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. Nonetheless, Hernandez claims that his sentence should be vacated and remanded on the ground that the District Court did not consider any of the more generic sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as required by Booker. 125 S.Ct. at 764 (“Without the ‘mandatory1 provision, the Act nonetheless requires judges to take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals.”); United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 115 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Hernandez claims that the District Court’s
holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in  3553a holding that guidelines should be accorded the same weight as each other factor listed in  3553a holding that a sentencing judge would violate section 3553a by limiting consideration of the applicable guidelines range to the facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant instead of considering the applicable guidelines range as required by subsection 3553a4 based on the facts found by the court