in the underlying drug offense, we had no occasion to address the applicable standard of review. Nonetheless, because we think the issue is important, especially in the context of sentencing, we write separately to explain why we think the parties were likely misguided in their assumption. Our premise is simple: We are required to apply “a clear error standard of review for appellate challenges to judicial fact-finding at sentencing,” United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 222 (2d Cir.2005), without regard to whether appellant objected to the trial judge’s factual findings below. As the Supreme Court recently stated in Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), we review a sentencing court’s factual determinations for clear error. See id. at 597 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Edwards, 496 F.3d
holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard holding that a sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range treating the guidelines as mandatory failing to consider the  3553a factors selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence emphasis added holding that a sentence is subject to reversal if the trial judge selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts holding that a defendants guilty plea is not knowingly made and is hence constitutionally invalid and subject to reversal on habeas if it is based upon erroneous sentencing information provided by the judge 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