including multiple offenses involving violence, during the period of his lengthy state incarceration suggest little abatement in his antisocial and nonconforming conduct. Further, the conduct underlying his most recent prior conviction and the instant § 922(g) offense tend to undermine his claim that he is now unlikely to commit violence. Currie’s conduct during his federal in-carcerátion, while improved, is not unblemished, and the court expressed understandable concern for Currie’s recent marijuana-related infractions. Currie claims that the district court placed too heavy an emphasis on those infractions. However, the district court was permitted to determine that those infractions, committed while Currie was in his late forties, undercut his arguments r (4th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). The district court made patently clear that
recognizing our authority to affirm sentence despite procedural error where record clearly reveals that court would have reached same result and sentence is substantively reasonable holding that affirmance is appropriate where the identified error clearly did not alter the result reached holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding procedural error is harmless where the court would have reached the same result had the guidelines issue been decided the other way and the sentence imposed would be reasonable even if contested issue decided in defendants favor holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless