departure, the defendant had more than one criminal history point under § 4A1.1 (Criminal History Category).”). Defendant also argues that the district court could have considered the assessment of the criminal history point for the OWI conviction to be “advisory,” leaving only one criminal history point and satisfying the first requirement for eligibility under the “safety valve” provision. This argument — essentially that the district court failed to recognize its discretion to apply the safety-valve exception through the granting of a downward variance — was rejected by this court in United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 592-95 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 752, 172 L.Ed.2d 746 (2008). See United States v. Carrean, 373 Fed.Appx. 557, 560 (6th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Because neither a departure nor a variance
holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines holding that even though the guidelines are advisory a district court must accurately calculate and consult the defendants guidelines range holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes 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 holding that although the guidelines are not mandatory when applied independently the district court still must adhere to the guidelines insofar as they incorporate the provisions of  3553f