did not move for a lower sentence and Collins does not raise an argument under § 3553(f). The district court could therefore not depart below the sentences it actually imposed for Counts Four and Ten. Accordingly, the district court only had discretion with regard to the 10-month sentence imposed for Counts Ten, Two, Three and Nine. The applicable Guidelines’ range for those counts is 63-79 months, and Collins makes no sufficient argument for why the court’s substantially lower sentence was unreasonable. * * * * * * For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the convictions. 1 . 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 2 . See United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir.2006). 3 . See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 253, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d
holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned holding confrontation clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and thus upholding firstdegree murder conviction holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of crossexamination of the prosecutions key witness